Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CLIFT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 14, Art. 14+5, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 14+5 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CLIFT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Art. 14+5;Non-pecuniary damage - award
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 7205/07
- EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (17)
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-X; and Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 40, ECHR 2008-...).Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006).
- EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79
BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
This ground has been construed broadly by the Court: in James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 74, Series A no. 98, the difference in treatment of which the applicant complained was between different categories of property owners; in Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos.Although the fifteen year mark was an arbitrary cut-off point, this was an area in which bright lines had to be drawn (citing James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; and Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, §§ 52-53, Series A no. 169).
- EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, ECHR 1999-III that the different treatment of landowners based on the size of the property they owned was discriminatory and in breach of Article 14. Accordingly, the applicant concluded that even if a ejusdem generis construction were to be considered appropriate, this would not lead to a limitation of the scope of Article 14 based on personal characteristics.25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, §§ 90 and 95, ECHR 1999-III, the difference was between large and small landowners.
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
The Court has established in its case-law that in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007; Burden, cited above, § 60; and Carson, cited above, § 61). - EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
ARTICO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
In Paulík, cited above, there was no suggestion that the distinction relied upon had any relevance outside the applicant's complaint but this did not prevent the Court from finding a violation of Article 14. The question whether there is a difference of treatment based on a personal or identifiable characteristic in any given case is a matter to be assessed taking into consideration all of the circumstances of the case and bearing in mind that the aim of the Convention is to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37; and Cudak v. Lithuania [GC], no. 15869/02, § 36, 23 March 2010). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83
Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
Although the fifteen year mark was an arbitrary cut-off point, this was an area in which bright lines had to be drawn (citing James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 68, Series A no. 98; and Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, §§ 52-53, Series A no. 169). - EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 15197/02
PETROV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
The fact that the applicant's situation is not fully analogous to that of shorter-term or life prisoners and that there are differences between the various groups does not preclude the application of Article 14 (see, mutatis mutandis, Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 15197/02, § 53, 22 May 2008). - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
First, relying on Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23, the Government argued that the words "other status" should be construed ejusdem generis with the other grounds listed in Article 14. - EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04
KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
However, the application of Article 14 does not necessarily presuppose the violation of one of the substantive rights guaranteed by the Convention and to this extent it is autonomous (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008-...; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, 16 March 2010). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97
THLIMMENOS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07
However, the application of Article 14 does not necessarily presuppose the violation of one of the substantive rights guaranteed by the Convention and to this extent it is autonomous (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008-...; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, 16 March 2010). - EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00
SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE
- EGMR, 29.11.1991 - 12742/87
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD ET AUTRES c. IRLANDE
- EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96
SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95
LARKOS c. CHYPRE
- EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06
SHELLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 10.01.2006 - 57345/00
BUDAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 47874/99
YILMAZ AND BARIM v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 5123/07
Verstoß gegen das Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit durch eine …
Scheint ein Verfahren über die Entlassung inhaftierter Personen jedoch eine Diskriminierung erkennen zu lassen, kann dies Fragen nach Artikel 5 in Verbindung mit Artikel 14 der Konvention aufwerfen (…siehe Gerger, a. a. O., Rdnr. 69;… Çelikkaya, a. a. O., Rdnr. 63; und Clift ./. das Vereinigte Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 7205/07, Rdnr. 42, 13. Juli 2010).