Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUDOROVIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUDOROVIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HUDOROVIC v. SLOVENIA and 1 other application

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 42488/02

  DZEMYUK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  There is no meaningful, real-life difference between having one's water supply contaminated by a nearby cemetery (as in the case of Dzemyuk v. Ukraine, no. 42488/02, 4 September 2014) and being forced, like the current applicants, to collect water from cemeteries and other unsafe sources for very long periods.
• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  In both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 98, ECHR 2003-VIII; Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 37, Series A no. 106, and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 59, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  Regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, the aims in the second paragraph of Article 8 being of a certain relevance (see Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 42, Series A no. 160, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 157, ECHR 2005-X).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  States are required to take into account the vulnerabilities of Roma communities and even take positive measures to try and accommodate their specific needs and lifestyle (see, among others, Chapman v. UK, [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I, and Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 25446/06, 24 April 2012).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  What matters is whether the environmental hazard has caused "significant impairment" to one's ability to enjoy one's home, considering aspects such as the intensity and duration of the nuisance (see Udovicic v. Croatia, no. 27310/09, § 139, 24 April 2014), and its physical and mental effects on health and quality of life (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 69, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  In both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention (see Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 98, ECHR 2003-VIII; Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 37, Series A no. 106, and Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 59, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  In socio-economic matters such as housing the margin of appreciation available to the State is necessarily a wide one (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98, and Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 45, Series A no. 169).
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 27310/09

  UDOVICIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  What matters is whether the environmental hazard has caused "significant impairment" to one's ability to enjoy one's home, considering aspects such as the intensity and duration of the nuisance (see Udovicic v. Croatia, no. 27310/09, § 139, 24 April 2014), and its physical and mental effects on health and quality of life (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 69, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  In socio-economic matters such as housing the margin of appreciation available to the State is necessarily a wide one (see James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98, and Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 45, Series A no. 169).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

  GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  Regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, the aims in the second paragraph of Article 8 being of a certain relevance (see Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 42, Series A no. 160, and Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 157, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  YORDANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 14065/15

  LACATUS c. SUISSE

  Souvent mentionnée sur le terrain de l'article 3, cette notion a également été évoquée à plusieurs reprises par la Cour sous l'angle de l'article 8 (voir notamment, Kucera c. Slovaquie, no 48666/99, § 122, 17 juillet 2007 ; Rachwalski et Ferenc c. Pologne, no 47709/99, § 73, 28 juillet 2009 ; El-Masri c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 39630/09, § 248, CEDH 2012 ; Khadija Ismayilova c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 65286/13 et 57270/14, § 116, 10 janvier 2019 ; Beizaras et Levickas c. Lituanie, no 41288/15, § 117, 14 janvier 2020 ; Vinks et Ribicka c. Lettonie, no 28926/10, § 114, 30 janvier 2020, et Hudorovic et autres c. Slovénie, nos 24816/14 et 25140/14, § 116, 10 mars 2020).
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA

  This approach has been applied in cases raising very different issues where the Court has found that, for Article 8 to come into play, either (i) there must be convincing evidence that an alleged failure on the part of the State (for example, to provide members of Roma minority with access to safe drinking water - see Hudorovic and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14, §§ 115 and 157, 10 March 2020) effectively eroded the applicants' core rights under that provision, or (ii) the attack on a person must attain a certain level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for one's private life (for example, in a case concerning homophobic statements - see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 109, 14 January 2020).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 81292/17

  CHOCHOLÁC v. SLOVAKIA

  24816/14 and 25140/14, § 115, 10 March 2020; and Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria, no. 29335/13, § 67, 16 February 2021).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 30391/18

  FAULKNER AND MCDONAGH v. IRELAND

  It has held that this provision does not recognise, as such, a right to be provided with a home (see Ghailan and Others v. Spain, no. 36366/14, § 53, 23 March 2021, and further references therein), nor does it confer a right to live in a particular location (see Garib v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 43494/09, § 141, 6 November 2017, and further references therein), or guarantee the right to have one's housing problems solved by the authorities, as the scope of any positive obligation to house the homeless is limited (see Hudorovic and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14, § 114, 10 March 2020).