Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Art. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZEHNALOVÁ AND ZEHNAL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  The Court considers that Article 8 of the Convention cannot be taken to be generally applicable each time the first applicant's everyday life is disrupted; it applies only in exceptional cases where her lack of access to public buildings and buildings open to the public affects her life in such a way as to interfere with her right to personal development and her right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  In their submission, what was at stake in the instant case was the first applicant's right under the Convention to respect for her private life in that, despite her disability, she wished to lead an active life while retaining her independence and dignity, an aspiration which they considered to be one of the aims of the Convention and of Article 8. They referred to the Airey v. Ireland judgment (9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p.15, § 26), in which the Court had observed: "Whilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of a social or economic nature." The applicants therefore contended that Article 8 was applicable and submitted that, as the Court had previously held (in López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 51, and Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 227, § 58), that provision also entailed positive obligations on the State that were inherent in effective respect for private or family life.
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  In their submission, what was at stake in the instant case was the first applicant's right under the Convention to respect for her private life in that, despite her disability, she wished to lead an active life while retaining her independence and dignity, an aspiration which they considered to be one of the aims of the Convention and of Article 8. They referred to the Airey v. Ireland judgment (9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p.15, § 26), in which the Court had observed: "Whilst the Convention sets forth what are essentially civil and political rights, many of them have implications of a social or economic nature." The applicants therefore contended that Article 8 was applicable and submitted that, as the Court had previously held (in López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 51, and Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 227, § 58), that provision also entailed positive obligations on the State that were inherent in effective respect for private or family life.

 
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  The Court reiterates that it has consistently stressed the autonomy of the concept of "civil rights and obligations" (see, among other authorities, König v. Germany, judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, p. 29, § 88).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  Before the Court, allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence, to the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Labita v. Italy, no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV), but such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact.
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  As the Court has consistently held (see, among other authorities, Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 12 February 1990, Series A no. 172, pp. 14-15, § 33, and Abdurrahman Orak v. Turkey, no. 31889/96, § 97, 14 February 2002), Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order.
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

  B. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  Ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see B. v. France, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, opinion of the Commission, p. 87, § 83).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, for example, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2002-I).

• LSG Baden-Württemberg, 18.07.2013 - L 7 SO 4642/12

  Sozialhilfe - Eingliederungshilfe - Teilhabe am Leben in der Gemeinschaft - …

  Nach der Rechtsprechung des EGMR in den Rechtssachen Botta vs. Italien (1998, Beschwerde Nr. 21439/93, Urteil vom 24. Februar 1998, www.ris.bka.gv.at ) und Zehnalova vs. Tschechische Republik (Beschwerde Nr. 38621/97, Entscheidung vom 14. Mai 2002, http://echr.ketse.com/ doc/38621.97) wird Art. 8 EMRK indessen nicht berührt, wenn der Zugang zum Meer (Botta) oder zu öffentlichen Einrichtungen (Zehnalova) nicht barrierefrei und damit für körperlich behinderte Menschen nicht zugänglich ist.
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 59751/15

  G. L. gg. Italien

  LE DROIT ET LA PRATIQUE INTERNATIONAUX 20. Les textes internationaux pertinents en l'espèce sont décrits dans l'arrêt Çam c. Turquie (no 51500/08, §§ 37-38, 23 février 2016 ; voir aussi, à titre complémentaire, Zehnalová et Zehnal c. République tchèque (déc.), no 38621/97, CEDH 2002-V, Mó?‚ka c. Pologne (déc.), no 56550/00, CEDH 2006-IV, et Farcas c. Roumanie (déc.), no 32596/04, §§ 68-70, 14 septembre 2010).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 11810/03

  MAURICE v. FRANCE

  The Court has held that a State is under this type of obligation where it has found a direct and immediate link between the measures requested by an applicant, on the one hand, and his private and/or family life on the other (see Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 17, § 32; X and Y v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, p. 11, § 23; López Ostra v. Spain, judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C, p. 55, § 55; Guerra and Others v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 227, § 58; Botta v. Italy, judgment of 24 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 423, § 35; and Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).

 
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 23065/12

  ENVER SAHIN c. TURQUIE

  Les textes internationaux pertinents en l'espèce sont décrits dans l'arrêt Çam (précité, §§ 37-38 - voir aussi à titre complémentaire, Zehnalová et Zehnal c. République tchèque (déc.), no 38621/97, CEDH 2002-V, Mólka c. Pologne (déc.), no 56550/00, CEDH 2006-IV, et Farcas c. Roumanie (déc.), no 32596/04, §§ §§ 68-70, 14 septembre 2010).
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 28859/11

  DUBSKÁ AND KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  This Court has held that Article 8 cannot be considered applicable each time an individual's everyday life is disrupted, but only in the exceptional cases where the State's failure to adopt measures interferes with that individual's right to personal development and his or her right to establish and maintain relations with other human beings and the outside world (see Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 54032/18

  T.C. v. ITALY

  Although it is not the Court's "task to review governments' compliance with instruments other than the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols", other international law instruments "provide it with a source of inspiration" (see, for instance, with reference to the European Social Charter, Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 1513/03

  DRAON c. FRANCE

  La Cour a conclu à l'existence de ce type d'obligations à la charge d'un Etat lorsqu'elle a constaté la présence d'un lien direct et immédiat entre, d'une part, les mesures demandées par un requérant et, d'autre part, la vie privée et/ou familiale de celui-ci (voir les arrêts Airey c. Irlande du 9 octobre 1979, série A no 32, § 32, X et Y c. Pays-Bas du 26 mars 1985, série A no 91, p. 11, § 23, López Ostra c. Espagne du 9 décembre 1994, série A no 303-C, p. 55, § 55, Guerra et autres c. Italie du 19 février 1998, Recueil 1998-I, p. 227, § 58, et Botta c. Italie du 24 février 1998, Recueil 1998-I, § 35 ainsi que Zehnalova et Zehnal c. République tchèque (déc.), no 38621/97, CEDH 2002-V).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 17780/18

  ISMAYILZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

  Although it is not the Court's "task to review governments' compliance with instruments other than the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols", we consider more specifically that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and, above all, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which, in the latter case, "like the Convention itself, was drawn up within the Council of Europe", should "provide it with a source of inspiration", "like other international treaties" (with reference to the European Social Charter, see, for example, Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 37575/04

  BOULOIS v. LUXEMBOURG

  En effet, l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention ne vise pas à créer de nouveaux droits substantiels (ainsi que le gouvernement défendeur le relève dans ses observations), mais à fournir une protection procédurale aux droits, qu'ils soient prévus par la Convention ou ses Protocoles ou bien par le système juridique interne (Zehnalova et Zehnal c. République Tchèque (déc.), no 38621/97, 14 mai 2002 et W. c. Royaume-Uni, 8 juillet 1987, § 73, série A no 121).
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community as a whole, and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (Zehnalová and Zehnal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 38621/97, ECHR 2002-V).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 56550/00

  MÓLKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 10794/12

  GIULIANO GERMANO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 7975/06

  KLAUS ET IOURI KILADZE c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 22457/16

  X ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 7269/05

  Erhoben von F. H. gegen Rumänien und Deutschland
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 52392/99

  UÇAR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 4241/12

  McDONALD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 42596/98

  SARI AND ÇOLAK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 62250/19

  JIVAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 32596/04

  FARCAS c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 52367/99

  MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 5084/18

  KUPINSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 23077/19

  ARNAR HELGI LÁRUSSON v. ICELAND
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 40477/13

  GLAISEN c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 19312/07

  TCHAGHIASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 40116/02

  SECIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  SENTGES v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 25036/16

  MASTERSKIKH c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 35427/15

  ORUÇ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 2643/09

  BAYRAKCI c. TURQUIE