Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALDEGUER TOMÁS v. SPAIN

  No 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;Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ALDEGUER TOMAS v. SPAIN

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-VI; and Muñoz Díaz, cited above, § 48).

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 53, ECHR 2006-VI).

• EGMR, 04.11.2008 - 4479/06

  COURTEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  Moreover, in an area of evolving rights where there is no established consensus, the Court has admitted that States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes (see Stec and Others, cited above, §§ 63-65; see, in particular, Schalk and Kopf, cited above, § 105, M.W. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 11313/02, 23 June 2009, and Courten v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 4479/06, 4 November 2008, relating to the introduction in Austria and the United Kingdom of legislation on civil or registered partnerships).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  4149/04 and 41029/04, § 43, ECHR 2012; and Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 54, 17 September 2009), one has to bear in mind that this approach should be the exception rather than the rule, as it causes problems with regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies on an almost regular basis (this is also true in the case at hand, see paragraph 59 for the Government's objection).

 
• EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96

  SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  Differences based solely on considerations of sexual orientation are unacceptable under the Convention (see Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 36, ECHR 1999-IX; E.B., cited above, §§ 93 and 96; X and Others, cited above, § 99; and Vallianatos and Others, cited above, § 77).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  The Court has also held that Article 14 does not prohibit a Contracting State from treating groups differently in order to correct "factual inequalities" between them; indeed in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may, without objective and reasonable justification, give rise to a breach of that Article (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV; Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 23.06.2009 - 11313/02

  M.W. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  Moreover, in an area of evolving rights where there is no established consensus, the Court has admitted that States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes (see Stec and Others, cited above, §§ 63-65; see, in particular, Schalk and Kopf, cited above, § 105, M.W. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 11313/02, 23 June 2009, and Courten v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 4479/06, 4 November 2008, relating to the introduction in Austria and the United Kingdom of legislation on civil or registered partnerships).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 18766/11

  Italien muß Rechtsrahmen für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaft schaffen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  In this connection, the Court recalls that it held in 2010 in its case of Schalk and Kopf that States enjoyed a margin of appreciation as regards the timing of the introduction of legislative changes in the field of legal recognition of same-sex couples and the exact status conferred on them, an area which was regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus (see Schalk and Kopf, cited above, §§ 105 and 108; see more recently, Oliari and Others v. Italy, nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, § 163, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  Sexual orientation is a concept covered by Article 14. The Court has repeatedly held that, just like differences based on sex, differences based on sexual orientation require "particularly convincing and weighty reasons" by way of justification (see, for example, Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 90, ECHR 1999-VI; Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, §§ 37 and 42, ECHR 2003-IX; and Vallianatos and Others, cited above, § 77).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04

  SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  The Government referred in this respect to the Court's reasoning in the case of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria (no. 30141/04, §§ 112-115, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 38963/08

  SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA DEL UCIEZA c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09

  In that connection, it reiterates that the six-month rule is autonomous and must be construed and applied according to the facts of each individual case, so as to ensure the effective exercise of the right to individual application (Fernández-Molina González and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 64359/01, ECHR 2002-IX; Sociedad Anónima del Ucieza v. Spain, no. 38963/08, § 45, 4 November 2014).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 56501/00

  MATA ESTEVEZ v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 13378/05

  Burden und Burden ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 08.10.2002 - 64359/01

  FERNANDEZ-MOLINA GONZALEZ et AUTRES contre l'ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 10843/84

  COSSEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 11.01.2018 - C-673/16

  Nach Auffassung von Generalanwalt Wathelet umfasst der Begriff "Ehegatte" im …

  48 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 7. November 2013, Vallianatos u. a./Griechenland, CE:ECHR:2013:1107JUD002938109, § 73, EGMR, 23. Februar 2016, Pajic/Kroatien, CE:ECHR:2016:0223JUD006845313, § 64, EGMR, 14. Juni 2016, Aldeguer Tomás/Spanien, CE:ECHR:2016:0614JUD003521409, § 75, und EGMR, 30. Juni 2016, Taddeucci und McCall/Italien, CE:ECHR:2016:0630JUD005136209, § 58.
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  While it is true that the examination of whether or not a right claimed by an applicant exists or not in the domestic legal order is one more common under, for example, Article 6 (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 27, ECHR 2000-VII; Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, § 40, ECHR 2007-II; Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 24, 20 March 2009) or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 39794/98, §§ 72-74, ECHR 2002-VII), the Court has also considered the position in domestic law and national judicial practice as part of its analysis of the applicability of Article 8 to a given complaint (see, for example, Manenc v. France (dec.), no. 66686/09, 21 September 2010, and Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain, no. 35214/09, §§ 76-77, 14 June 2016).