Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PY c. FRANCE

  Art. 14, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 56, Art. 56 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  Non-violation de P1-3 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PY v. FRANCE [Extracts]

  Art. 14, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 56, Art. 56 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  No violation of P1-3 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.11.2003 - 66289/01
• EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  The former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, DR 90-A, p. 5).
• EKMR, 12.07.1976 - 7008/75

  X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  In the case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, the 1980 constitutional reform in Belgium had vested in the Flemish Council sufficient competence and powers to make it, alongside the French Community Council and the Walloon Regional Council, a constituent part of the Belgian "legislature", in addition to the House of Representatives and the Senate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 53, and Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 40, ECHR 1999-I; see also the Commission's decisions on the application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to regional parliaments in Austria (X v. Austria, no. 7008/75, decision of 12 July 1976, Decisions and Reports (DR) 6, p. 120) and in Germany (Timke v. Germany, no. 27311/95, decision of 11 September 1995, DR 82-A, p. 158).
• EKMR, 11.09.1995 - 27311/95

  TIMKE v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  In the case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, the 1980 constitutional reform in Belgium had vested in the Flemish Council sufficient competence and powers to make it, alongside the French Community Council and the Walloon Regional Council, a constituent part of the Belgian "legislature", in addition to the House of Representatives and the Senate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 53, and Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 40, ECHR 1999-I; see also the Commission's decisions on the application of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to regional parliaments in Austria (X v. Austria, no. 7008/75, decision of 12 July 1976, Decisions and Reports (DR) 6, p. 120) and in Germany (Timke v. Germany, no. 27311/95, decision of 11 September 1995, DR 82-A, p. 158).

 
• EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 23450/94

  POLACCO ET GAROFALO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  The former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, DR 90-A, p. 5).
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  The Government submitted that in the instant case there was positive and conclusive proof of a compelling requirement within the meaning of the Tyrer v. the United Kingdom judgment (25 April 1978, Series A no. 26).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  Since Article 3 recognises them without setting them forth in express terms, let alone defining them, there is room for "implied limitations" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 66289/01

  The Government pointed out that the ballots were being held as part of a self-determination process and that the system described was incomplete and provisional, as in the case of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113).

• BVerfG, 06.02.2024 - 2 BvE 6/23

  Unzulässige Anträge gegen die Zustimmung Deutschlands zum Direktwahlakt 2018 …

  Der Gerichtshof ging davon aus, dass die Vertragsstaaten über einen weiten Spielraum bei der Gestaltung des Wahlsystems verfügen (vgl. EGMR, PY v. France, Urteil vom 11. Januar 2005, Nr. 66289/01, § 46; EGMR , Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey, Urteil vom 8. Juli 2008, Nr. 10226/03, § 110).

  Sperrklauseln können nach seiner Rechtsprechung gerechtfertigt sein, wenn sie verhältnismäßig sind (vgl. EGMR, PY v. France, Urteil vom 11. Januar 2005, Nr. 66289/01, §§ 46 f.; EGMR , Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey, Urteil vom 8. Juli 2008, Nr. 10226/03, §§ 110 ff.).

• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 42202/07

  SITAROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  For the purposes of applying Article 3 of the Protocol, any electoral legislation must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned, so that features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may be justified in the context of another (see Py v. France, no. 66289/01, § 46, ECHR 2005-I (extracts)), at least so long as the chosen system provides for conditions which will ensure the "free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 3179/05

  GAKIYEV AND GAKIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that the rights to vote and stand for election are implicit in Article 3 of Protocol No. 1; however, they are not absolute (see Py v. France, no. 66289/01, § 46, ECHR 2005-I (extracts).