Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 14+8 Partiellement irrecevable Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIYUTIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 14+8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KIYUTIN v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Art. 14+8;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2012, 221

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 38832/06

  ALAJOS KISS v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  Such prejudice could entail legislative stereotyping which prohibited the individualised evaluation of their capacities and needs (see Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, § 42, ECHR 2010-...).

  The Court considers that such an indiscriminate refusal of a residence permit, without an individualised judicial evaluation and solely based on a health condition, cannot be considered compatible with the protection against discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, § 44, ECHR 2010-...).

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  The Court has established in its case-law that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007, and Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  The existence of a European consensus is an additional consideration relevant for determining whether the respondent State should be afforded a narrow or a wide margin of appreciation (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-XIII, and S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 31, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  Article 14 does not prohibit all differences in treatment but only those differences based on an identifiable, objective or personal characteristic, or "status", by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from one another (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, §§ 61 and 70, ECHR 2010-..., and Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  In the past the Court has identified a number of such vulnerable groups that suffered different treatment on account of their sex (see Abdulaziz, cited above, § 78, and Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B), sexual orientation (see Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, § 97, ECHR 2010-..., and Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 90, ECHR 1999-VI), race or ethnicity (see D.H., cited above, § 182, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII), mental faculties (see Alajos Kiss, cited above, § 42, and, mutatis mutandis, Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 95, 27 March 2008), or disability (see Glor, cited above, § 84).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  Having regard to the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that it is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Guerra and Others v. Italy, 19 February 1998, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I), the Court considers it appropriate to examine the applicant's grievances from the standpoint of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8 (compare Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 70, Series A no. 94).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  Once the applicant has shown that there has been a difference in treatment, it is then for the respondent Government to show that the difference in treatment could be justified (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 45330/99

  S.L. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  The existence of a European consensus is an additional consideration relevant for determining whether the respondent State should be afforded a narrow or a wide margin of appreciation (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-XIII, and S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 31, ECHR 2003-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04

  SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  In the past the Court has identified a number of such vulnerable groups that suffered different treatment on account of their sex (see Abdulaziz, cited above, § 78, and Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B), sexual orientation (see Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, § 97, ECHR 2010-..., and Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 90, ECHR 1999-VI), race or ethnicity (see D.H., cited above, § 182, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII), mental faculties (see Alajos Kiss, cited above, § 42, and, mutatis mutandis, Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 95, 27 March 2008), or disability (see Glor, cited above, § 84).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  In the past the Court has identified a number of such vulnerable groups that suffered different treatment on account of their sex (see Abdulaziz, cited above, § 78, and Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B), sexual orientation (see Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, § 97, ECHR 2010-..., and Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 90, ECHR 1999-VI), race or ethnicity (see D.H., cited above, § 182, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII), mental faculties (see Alajos Kiss, cited above, § 42, and, mutatis mutandis, Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 95, 27 March 2008), or disability (see Glor, cited above, § 84).

• BAG, 19.12.2013 - 6 AZR 190/12

  HIV-Infektion - Behinderung - AGG und Wartezeitkündigung

  (1) Die gesellschaftliche Teilhabe auch von symptomlos HIV-Infizierten wird nach wie vor typischerweise durch zahlreiche Stigmatisierungen (zum Begriff des Stigmas Stürmer/Salewski in Beelmann/Jonas Diskriminierung und Toleranz S. 263, 267 f.; vgl. auch Empfehlung 200 der ILO vom 17. Juni 2010 unter I Ziff. 1 Buchst. d) und soziales Vermeidungsverhalten beeinträchtigt, die auf die Furcht vor einer Infektion zurückzuführen sind, auch wenn die Ausgrenzung in Westeuropa im Rückgang begriffen ist (…Stürmer/Salewski aaO S. 264 f., 273; vgl. auch EGMR 3. Oktober 2013 - 552/10 - Rn. 79 ff.; EGMR 10. März 2011 - 2700/10 - [Kiyutin/Russland] Rn. 64) .
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Eu égard à ce qui précède, et également à la nature particulière des obligations de l'État concernant les personnes atteintes d'un handicap (voir, parmi d'autres, Jasinskis c. Lettonie, no 45744/08, 21 décembre 2010, et Kiyutin c. Russie, no 2700/10, CEDH 2011), nous estimons que dans le cas de M. Câmpeanu, une personne qui était dans une situation d'extrême vulnérabilité et de dépendance totale vis-à-vis des organes de l'État, il y a eu violation de l'article 14 combiné avec l'article 2 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  Sex ist auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig

  Other notable precedents in the field of stereotyping are Aksu v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, ECHR 2012); Kiyutin v. Russia (no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011); and Alajos Kiss v. Hungary (no. 38832/06, § 49, 20 May 2010), even if the last-mentioned case was not analysed under Article 14. In Aksu (cited above, § 58) the Grand Chamber stated:.

 
• EGMR - 13817/14 (anhängig)

  V.V. v. RUSSIA

  Referring to the Court's judgment in the Kiyutin v. Russia case (no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011) and to the binding nature of the Court's judgments in respect of Russia, the Regional Court held as follows:.

  For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice, see Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, §§ 16-27, ECHR 2011.

  Having regard to the principles established in the Court's judgment concerning the refusal of a residence permit to an applicant on account of his health status (see Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, §§ 53-74, ECHR 2011), was there a violation of the applicant's right to be protected against discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with his right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8, on account of the pronouncement of his presence in Russia undesirable?.

• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 552/10

  I.B. c. GRÈCE

  Le Gouvernement considère qu'il faudrait distinguer la présente espèce de l'affaire Kiyutin c. Russie (no 2700/10, CEDH 2011), dans laquelle les restrictions imposées aux droits du requérant auraient été la conséquence d'un acte de l'État, alors qu'en l'espèce le traitement discriminatoire allégué aurait été le fait d'un particulier et que la Cour de cassation aurait été appelée à examiner un différend entre particuliers.
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 59751/15

  G. L. gg. Italien

  La Cour a déjà identifié un certain nombre de ces catégories vulnérables, victimes de différences de traitement en raison de leurs caractéristiques ou de leur situation, notamment de leur handicap (Glor, précité, § 84, Alajos Kiss c. Hongrie, no 38832/06, § 42, 20 mai 2010, Kiyutin c. Russie, no 2700/10, § 63, CEDH 2011 ; Guberina, précité § 73).
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  GUBERINA v. CROATIA

  The Court has already identified a number of such vulnerable groups that suffered different treatment on account of their characteristic or status, including disability (see Glor, cited above, § 84; Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, § 42, 20 May 2010; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 63, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 68453/13

  PAJIC v. CROATIA

  Where immigration is concerned, Article 8 or any other Convention provision cannot be considered to impose on a State a general obligation to, for instance, authorise family reunion in its territory (see Jeunesse, cited above, § 107; and Gül v. Switzerland, 19 February 1996, § 38, Reports 1996-I; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 38, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In general, it can also be argued that the poor are a vulnerable group in and of themselves,[3] and that restrictions applied to this group must ensure a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see I.B. v. Greece, § 78, no. 552/10, ECHR 2014); the State's margin of appreciation must accordingly also be narrower in this context (Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 63, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10

  BIAO v. DENMARK

  The Court accepts that in this respect the applicants enjoyed "other status" for the purpose of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 46-48; Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR - 20981/15 (anhängig)

  GRACIOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 75781/14 (anhängig)

  KOSTYCHEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 3891/19

  CÎNTA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 17280/08

  A.N. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11

  NOVRUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.03.2017 - 53251/13

  A.-M.V. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 24867/13

  M.K. v. UKRAINE
• VGH Bayern, 06.11.2013 - 10 ZB 12.167

  Darlegungspflicht im Zulassungsverfahren; Aufenthaltserlaubnis; Beziehungen zu …
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 73736/12

  I.N. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  USTINOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.03.2016 - 46280/14

  SHVALIA AND KOSTYCHEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 648/10

  Y c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 62964/10 (anhängig)

  KURMANAYEVSKIY c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 25402/15 (anhängig)

  TOSHMIRZAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 70501/17

  GARCÍA SAÍZ v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 13.07.2021 - 28895/14

  KHACHATRYAN AND KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 33405/10

  KOSTROMITIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 2804/17

  CHALI v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 51480/14

  SHAKULINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA