Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BURDEN ET BURDEN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 14+P1-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BURDEN AND BURDEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 14, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 14+P1-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 13378/05

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

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  65731/01 and 65900/01, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2005-...).

  The Contracting State enjoys a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  The present case was on that ground distinguishable from Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, where the applicants had been complaining about certain provisions of Belgian law that applied automatically to the illegitimate child and her mother, and Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, where the complaint concerned rights of inheritance where the parent had already died.

  The Government emphasised that there was no right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to acquire possessions; in the Court's case-law on domestic inheritance laws, it had consistently held that, before the relevant death occurred, the presumptive heir had no property rights and that his or her hope of inheriting in the event of death could not therefore amount to a "possession" (see Marckx, § 50; and also Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, § 38; Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/96, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2000-II).

• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 34406/96

  MAZUREK contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  The Government emphasised that there was no right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to acquire possessions; in the Court's case-law on domestic inheritance laws, it had consistently held that, before the relevant death occurred, the presumptive heir had no property rights and that his or her hope of inheriting in the event of death could not therefore amount to a "possession" (see Marckx, § 50; and also Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, § 38; Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/96, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2000-II).

 
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  In this respect the present case is closer to Marckx than to, for example, Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 49, ECHR 2002-IV, where the Court found the applicant's complaint about discrimination concerning the future non-payment to him of a Widow's Pension or equivalent to be "hypothetical", because of the lack of certainty that the applicant would satisfy the statutory conditions for entitlement by the time he reached the age at which a woman in his position would be eligible to apply.
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  The Convention explicitly protects the right to marry in Article 12, and the Court has held on many occasions that sexual orientation is a concept covered by Article 14 and that differences based on sexual orientation require particularly serious reasons by way of justification (see, for example, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 37, ECHR 2003-IX and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  The present case was on that ground distinguishable from Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, where the applicants had been complaining about certain provisions of Belgian law that applied automatically to the illegitimate child and her mother, and Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, where the complaint concerned rights of inheritance where the parent had already died.
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  Thus, as in Marckx (cited above), or Johnston and Others v. Ireland, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, both of which concerned complaints about the effect of illegitimacy on succession rights under domestic law, the applicants ran a very high risk of a violation of their Convention rights.
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  Article 14 safeguards individuals placed in similar positions from discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and Protocols (see Marckx, § 32 and Darby v. Sweden, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 187, § 31).
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  The applicants were not so affected by the risk of a future liability to tax as to bring them into a comparable position to the applicants in Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, where the Court found that a threat of inhuman and degrading punishment could in itself breach Article 3 of the Convention, or Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, where the existence of criminal sanctions for homosexual acts must necessarily have affected the applicant's daily conduct and private life.
• EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76

  CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05

  The applicants were not so affected by the risk of a future liability to tax as to bring them into a comparable position to the applicants in Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A no. 48, where the Court found that a threat of inhuman and degrading punishment could in itself breach Article 3 of the Convention, or Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, where the existence of criminal sanctions for homosexual acts must necessarily have affected the applicant's daily conduct and private life.