Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOJNITY v. HUNGARY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  [DEU] Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Vojnity v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VOJNITY v. HUNGARY

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07
• EGMR, 04.11.2015 - 29617/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  In other words, the notion of discrimination includes in general cases where a person or group is treated, without proper justification, less favourably than another (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 82, Series A no. 94).
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  In this respect, the Court recalls that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life (see Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, § 58, Series A no. 156).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 64927/01

  PALAU-MARTINEZ v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  As has been well established in the Court's case-law, such a difference in treatment is discriminatory in the absence of an "objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it is not justified by a "legitimate aim" and if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, among other authorities, Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 39, ECHR 2003-XII).

 
• EGMR, 26.02.2004 - 74969/01

  Sorge- und Umgangsrecht sowie Adoption

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  In respect of restrictions on family life, the Court reiterates that as regards restrictions placed by authorities on parental rights of access, a stricter scrutiny is called for than in the context of custody (see Görgülü v. Germany, no. 74969/01, § 42, 26 February 2004).
• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of them (see, among many other authorities, Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, § 34, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  HOFFMANN c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  The Court further reiterates that in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, Article 14 affords protection against different treatment, without an objective and reasonable justification, of persons in similar situations (see Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 31, Series A no. 255-C).
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  The Court has applied a similar approach in the context of differences in treatment on the basis of sex (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, § 50), birth status (see Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, § 41, Series A no. 126), sexual orientation (see L. and V. v. Austria, nos. 39392/98 and 39829/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-I) and nationality (Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).