Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PILAV v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PILAV v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 41939/07

  The relevant domestic law was outlined in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 41939/07

  "No objective and reasonable justification" means that the distinction in issue does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or that there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, among many authorities, Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 81, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  EREL AND DAMDELEN v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 41939/07

  The Court recalls that, in relation to cases concerning Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, it has found that a residence requirement was not disproportionate or irreconcilable with the underlying purposes of the right to free elections (see, for example, Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999 VI, and Ali Erel and Mustafa Damdelen v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 39973/07, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 41939/07

  The Court recalls that, in relation to cases concerning Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, it has found that a residence requirement was not disproportionate or irreconcilable with the underlying purposes of the right to free elections (see, for example, Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999 VI, and Ali Erel and Mustafa Damdelen v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 39973/07, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02

  MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 41939/07

  Relevant considerations include (1) the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or continuously concerned with, and has less knowledge of, a country's day-to-day problems; (2) the impracticality and sometimes undesirability (in some cases impossibility) of parliamentary candidates presenting the different electoral issues to citizens living elsewhere so as to secure the free expression of opinion; (3) the influence of resident citizens on the selection of candidates and on the formulation of their electoral programmes; and (4) the correlation between one's right to vote in parliamentary elections and being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected (see Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, §§ 56-57, ECHR 2004-X).

• EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22

  KOVACEVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Following the judgments of this Court in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, ECHR 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014) and Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016), the Constitutional Court has started declaring complaints about the ethnic composition of the House of Peoples and the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina inadmissible because the matter has already been examined.

  Moreover, social benefits are strictly linked to place of residence and are not the same in different parts of the country (see, mutatis mutandis, Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41939/07, §§ 34, 43, 45 and 48, 9 June 2016, in which the Court rejected a similar argument, and, for illustrative purposes, Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no. 55799/18, § 26, 8 December 2020).

  These complaints are different from those raised by the applicants in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] (nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 December 2009), Zornic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 3681/06, 15 July 2014), ? laku v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 56666/12, 26 May 2016), Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016) and Pudaric v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 55799/18, 8 December 2020), where the applicants had been potential candidates and successfully complained about restrictions on their right to stand for election.

• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 43440/15

  DZELADIN v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right of freedom of movement and the principle of non-discrimination (see, among others, Shioshvili and Others v. Russia, no. 19356/07, 20 December 2016; Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, ECHR 2005-XII; and Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41939/07, 9 June 2016).