Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARTI TRAVAILLISTE GEORGIEN c. GEORGIE

  Art. 14, Art. 34, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3 MRK
  Non-violation de P1-3 Violation de P1-3 Non-violation de l'art. 14+P1-3 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA

  Art. 14, Art. 34, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of P1-3 Violation of P1-3 No violation of Art. 14+P1-3 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of a violation sufficient ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia (II)

  [04.09.2007]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 9103/04
• EGMR, 22.05.2007 - 9103/04
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04
• EGMR, 07.08.2008 - 9103/04
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 9103/04

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The Court recalls that Article 14 has no independent existence, but plays an important role by complementing the other provisions of the Convention and the Protocols, since it protects individuals, placed in similar situations, from any discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights set forth in those other provisions (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 26, § 67, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The Court therefore considers that the Contracting States should indeed be granted a margin of appreciation in the sphere of organising their electoral administrations, as long as the chosen system provides for conditions which ensure the "free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of their legislature" (see, mutatis mutandis, Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  As sole evidence of the tense relations between the central and Ajarian authorities, the Government referred to the circumstances of the case of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, ECHR 2004-II).

 
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 44081/02

  BOMPARD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The latter notion presupposes that, whilst all citizens must be given an equal chance to cast a ballot under any electoral system, no electoral system can guarantee that all the votes cast should necessarily have equal weight as regards the outcome of the election (see Bompard v. France (dec.), no. 44081/02, ECHR 2006-....).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  Moreover, the second sum of EUR 21, 420 has not been shown to have been reasonably or necessarily incurred on behalf of the applicant party (see, among many authorities, Assanidze, cited above, § 206; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, p. 83, § 77; Malama v. Greece (just satisfaction), no. 43622/98, § 17, 18 April 2002).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The Court recalls that Article 14 has no independent existence, but plays an important role by complementing the other provisions of the Convention and the Protocols, since it protects individuals, placed in similar situations, from any discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights set forth in those other provisions (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 26, § 67, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94

  REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The Court has often underlined the necessity to maintain the political neutrality of those civil servants, judges and other persons in State service who exercise public authority, so as to ensure that all citizens receive equal and fair treatment that is not vitiated by political considerations (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, §§ 41 and 46, ECHR 1999-III; BriÄ e v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47135/99, 29 June 2000; Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp.
• EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 47135/99

  BRIKE c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The Court has often underlined the necessity to maintain the political neutrality of those civil servants, judges and other persons in State service who exercise public authority, so as to ensure that all citizens receive equal and fair treatment that is not vitiated by political considerations (see Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, §§ 41 and 46, ECHR 1999-III; BriÄ e v. Latvia (dec.), no. 47135/99, 29 June 2000; Vogt v. Germany, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp.
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  AZIZ c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The Court reiterates that, under its case-law, the notion of "individual rights" (see Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 25, ECHR 2004-V, and Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-...) or "subjective rights" (see Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 54, ECHR 2004-X) to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have mostly been confined to physical persons.
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02

  MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  The Court reiterates that, under its case-law, the notion of "individual rights" (see Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 25, ECHR 2004-V, and Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-...) or "subjective rights" (see Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 54, ECHR 2004-X) to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have mostly been confined to physical persons.
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00

  RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 11855/85

  H?KANSSON AND STURESSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

• BVerfG, 29.11.2023 - 2 BvF 1/21

  Das Bundeswahlrecht 2020 ist verfassungsgemäß

  Nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte können Beeinträchtigungen der Stabilität des Wahlrechts Art. 3 ZP I EMRK verletzen (vgl. EGMR, Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, Urteil vom 8. Juli 2008, Nr. 9103/04, §§ 88 f.; , Tanase v. Moldova, Urteil vom 27. April 2010, Nr. 7/08, § 179; Ekoglasnost c. Bulgarie, Urteil vom 6. November 2012, Nr. 30386/05, §§ 68 ff.).

  Nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte ist bei der Anwendung von Art. 3 ZP I EMRK indes jedes Wahlgesetz im Lichte der politischen Entwicklung des betreffenden Landes zu beurteilen (vgl. EGMR, Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, Urteil vom 8. Juli 2008, Nr. 9103/04, § 89).