Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BIRZIETIS v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09
• EGMR, 05.07.2017 - 49304/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  The Court further reiterates that personal choices as to an individual's desired appearance, whether in public or in private places, relate to the expression of his or her personality and thus fall within the notion of private life (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 107, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and the cases cited therein).

  An example here is the ban on Islamic burkas in all public spaces (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) or the ban on Islamic headscarves in certain public institutions (see Sevgi Kurtulmus v. Turkey (dec., no. 65500/01, 2016 January 24).

• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01

  KURTULMUS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  An example here is the ban on Islamic burkas in all public spaces (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) or the ban on Islamic headscarves in certain public institutions (see Sevgi Kurtulmus v. Turkey (dec., no. 65500/01, 2016 January 24).
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  GARCÍA RUIZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  The Court reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by national courts (see, among many other authorities, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 29, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  Relying on Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom (25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C), they contended that not every act or measure which may be said to affect adversely the physical or moral integrity of a person necessarily gives rise to an interference with private life.
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  The Court reiterates that there is no exhaustive definition of the notion of private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, but that it is a broad term (see, among many other authorities, Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 153, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 4233/09

  POPA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  It has found to this effect previously as regards a haircut (see Popa v. Romania (dec.), no. 4233/09, §§ 32-33, 18 June 2013) and a choice of clothing (see S.A.S. v. France, cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 23563/07

  GAGLIANO GIORGI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  The severity of a violation should be assessed taking account of both the applicant's subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, § 55, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  Secondly, it refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be formulated with sufficient precision so as to be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (see, among many other authorities, Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 110, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein).