Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVEZ CRKAVA \

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+9, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 14+9 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVEZ CRKAVA \

  [HRV] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 14+9;Non-pecuniary damage - award

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVEZ CRKAVA \

  [ARM] Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 14+9;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08
• EGMR, 24.04.2019 - 7798/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  It follows that, although Croatia is not obliged under Article 9 of the Convention to allow religious education in public schools and nurseries or to recognise religious marriages, the facts of the instant case nevertheless fall within the wider ambit of that Article (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2000-IV; Löffelmann v. Austria, no. 42967/98, §§ 46-48, 12 March 2009; and Gütl v. Austria, no. 49686/99, §§ 31-33, 12 March 2009).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  In this connection the Court reiterates that the issue whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 14.06.2001 - 53072/99

  ALUJER FERNANDEZ and CABALLERO GARCIA v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  In particular, the conclusion of agreements between the State and a particular religious community establishing a special regime in favour of the latter does not, in principle, contravene the requirements of Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention, provided that there is an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment and that similar agreements may be entered into by other religious communities wishing to do so (see Alujer Fernández and Caballero García v. Spain (dec.), no. 53072/99, ECHR 2001-VI).

 
• EGMR, 06.09.2001 - 69789/01

  BRUSCO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  While it is true that this rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII), the Court considers, having due regard to the subsidiary character of the Convention machinery, that in the present case there are no special circumstances to justify making an exception to that rule.
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 77784/01

  NOGOLICA c. CROATIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  While it is true that this rule is subject to exceptions which may be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see, for example, Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001-IX; and Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII), the Court considers, having due regard to the subsidiary character of the Convention machinery, that in the present case there are no special circumstances to justify making an exception to that rule.
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the prohibition of discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention applies also to those additional rights, falling within the wider ambit of any Convention Article, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide (see E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 48, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 42967/98

  LÖFFELMANN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  It follows that, although Croatia is not obliged under Article 9 of the Convention to allow religious education in public schools and nurseries or to recognise religious marriages, the facts of the instant case nevertheless fall within the wider ambit of that Article (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, §§ 40-43, ECHR 2000-IV; Löffelmann v. Austria, no. 42967/98, §§ 46-48, 12 March 2009; and Gütl v. Austria, no. 49686/99, §§ 31-33, 12 March 2009).
• EKMR, 10.12.1976 - 7443/76

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  It reiterates in this connection that the "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for an applicant (see, for example, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 88, ECHR 2000-II) and that the mere fact that an action has very limited prospects of success is not equivalent to depriving the plaintiff of the right of access to a court (see X v. the United Kingdom, no. 7443/76, Commission decision of 10 December 1976, DR 8, pp. 216, 217).
• EKMR, 02.03.1987 - 11775/85

  VAN BUITENEN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, for example, Van Buitenen v. the Netherlands, no. 11775/85, Commission decision of 2 March 1987, and Cha"are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 86, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 7798/08

  Having regard to that finding, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 51, ECHR 2009-...).