Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMICHEV c. RUSSIE

  Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 14+P4 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation de P4-2 Violation de l'art. 14+P4-2 Violation de P1-2 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 14, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 14+P4 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of P4-2 Violation of Art. 14+P4-2 Violation of P1-2 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 55762/00
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 55762/00
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00, 55974/00

Wird zitiert von ... (37)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  In a democratic society, the right to education, which is indispensable to the furtherance of human rights, plays such a fundamental role that a restrictive interpretation of the first sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 would not be consistent with the aim or purpose of that provision (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 137, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 26, § 67).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 26, § 67).

 
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  The Court reiterates that, by binding themselves not to "[deny] the right to education" under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the Contracting States guarantee to anyone within their jurisdiction a right of access to educational institutions existing at a given time and the possibility of drawing, by official recognition of the studies which he has completed, profit from the education received (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, pp. 25-26, § 52, and Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium", judgment of 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, pp. 30-32, §§ 3-5).
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

  RAIMONDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  In order to be compatible with the guarantees of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, the impugned restriction should be "in accordance with the law", pursue one or more of the legitimate aims contemplated in paragraph 3 and be "necessary in a democratic society" (see Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 19, § 39) or, where the restriction applies to particular areas only, be "justified by the public interest in a democratic society" as established in paragraph 4.
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  A differential treatment of persons in relevantly similar situations, without an objective and reasonable justification, constitutes discrimination (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof, are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII).

• OVG Rheinland-Pfalz, 21.04.2016 - 7 A 11108/14

  Polizeikontrolle einer dunkelhäutigen Familie im Zug

  Mithin handelt es sich nicht erst um einen Eingriff in Art. 3 Abs. 3 Satz 1 GG, wenn die Ungleichbehandlung ausschließlich oder ausschlaggebend an eines der dort genannten Merkmale anknüpft (vgl. OVG RP…, Urteil vom 27. März 2014 - 7 A 10993/13.OVG -, juris, Rn. 36, "allein aufgrund der Hautfarbe'; OVG RP in der mündlichen Verhandlung in dem für erledigt erklärten Verfahren 7 A 10532/12.OVG, Pressemitteilung 30/2012 vom 30. Oktober 2012, "ausschlaggebendes Kriterium'; zum Diskriminierungsverbot nach Art. 14 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention vgl. auch EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Dezember 2005 - Nr. 55762/00, u.a., Timishev/Russland -, Rn. 58, "exclusively or to a decisive extent' [abrufbar unter: www.hudoc.echr.coe.int];… Urteil vom 13. November 2007 - Nr. 57325/00, D.H. u.a/Tschechien -, Rn. 176, "ausschließlich oder wesentlich' NVwZ 2008, 533 [534]), sondern bereits dann, wenn bei einem Motivbündel ein unzulässiges Differenzierungsmerkmal ein tragendes Kriterium unter mehreren gewesen ist.
• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 07.08.2018 - 5 A 294/16

  An die Hautfarbe anknüpfende Identitätsfeststellung durch die Bundespolizei am …

  vgl. zur Rechtfertigung von Regelungen, die an das Geschlecht anknüpfen, soweit sie zur Lösung von Problemen, die ihrer Natur nach nur bei Frauen oder Männern auftreten können, erforderlich sind BVerfG, Urteil vom 28. Januar 1992 - 1 BvR 1025/82 u.a. -, juris, Rn. 55; kritisch zur Möglichkeit einer Rechtfertigung bei Anknüpfung an das Merkmal der Rasse Drohla, ZAR 2012, 411 (414); Kischel, in: Epping/Hillgruber, BeckOK GG, 33. Edition, Stand: 1. Juni 2017, Art. 3 Rn. 214.1; zur wohl nicht möglichen Rechtfertigung von Anknüpfungen an die Hautfarbe nach Art. 14 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13. Dezember 2005 - 55762/00 u.a., Timishev/Russland -, Rn. 58 ("exclusively or to a decisive extent"), und vom 13. November 2007 - 57325/00, D.H. u.a/Tschechien -, Rn. 176 = NVwZ 2008, 533 (534) ("ausschließlich oder wesentlich").
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 215/19

  Diskriminierung: Deutschland hat Racial-Profiling-Vorwurf nicht genug geprüft

  24. The Court further reiterates that racial discrimination is a particularly egregious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction (see, in the context of Article 14, Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII, and Sejdi and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.

  a rule, it is for the applicant to show a difference in treatment and for the Government to show that it was justified (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 57, 13 December 2015; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 57325/00, § 177, 13 November 2007; and Di Trizio v. Switzerland, no. 7186/09, § 84, 2 February 2016).

 
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Despite being citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the applicants are denied by the Constitution any right to stand for election to the House of Peoples and the Presidency on the grounds of their race/ethnicity (ethnic discrimination has been held by the Court to be a form of racial discrimination in Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

  55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII; and Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 144, ECHR 2010).".
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17

  MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN

  The Court reiterates that racial discrimination is a particularly egregious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction (see, in the context of Article 14, Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII, and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.

  It is only once an applicant has shown a difference in treatment that the burden of proof shifts to the Government to show that it was justified (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 177, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 57, ECHR 2005-XII).

  The present judgment rightly emphasises the importance of combating racial discrimination, which "is a particularly invidious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction" (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII).

• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08

  SKENDZIC AND KRZNARIC v. CROATIA

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).

  "Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).".

  In Chassagnou the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 95, ECHR 1999-III) and in Timishev the Court found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 59, ECHR 2005-XII).

• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  ORSUS ET AUTRES c. CROATIE

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 4149/04

  AKSU c. TURQUIE

  55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA

  It is for this reason that the authorities must use all available means to combat racism, thereby reinforcing democracy's vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of enrichment (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 42429/16

  MEMEDOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 37966/07

  ANTAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 41526/10

  DORDEVIC c. CROATIE
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10

  BIAO v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 40792/10

  FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.12.2010 - C-391/09

  Runevic-Vardyn und Wardyn - Unionsbürgerschaft - Grundsatz der …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 01.12.2016 - C-668/15

  Jyske Finans - Richtlinie 2000/43/EG - Art. 2 - Gleichbehandlung ohne Unterschied …
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 16899/13

  KOCHEROV AND SERGEYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 17808/19

  PAKETOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 35082/04

  MAKHMUDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 7973/10

  LAVIDA ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 6518/04

  DOKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  A.K. AND L. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 59608/09

  SAMPANI ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 17599/07

  KIRIL IVANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  YORDAN IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 29496/16

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 3)
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 20546/07

  MAKHASHEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.05.2016 - 56666/12

  SLAKU v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 12959/05

  MAGO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 14139/03

  BOLAT v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 4663/05

  SOLTYSYAK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 43440/15

  DZELADIN v. NORTH MACEDONIA
• EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 12509/13

  PANAYOTOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA