Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EREL AND DAMDELEN v. CYPRUS

  Art. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  In this connection, the Supreme Court referred to the Court's findings in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV), Loizidou v. Turkey ((preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310), Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey (no. 46347/99, 22 December 2005) and Aziz (cited above).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that discrimination, both for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV; with regard to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 see the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12, § 18; Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, 22 December 2009).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  There is room for implied limitations and Contracting States must be given a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere (Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, 2 March 1987, § 52, Series A no. 113).

 
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that discrimination, both for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV; with regard to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 see the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 12, § 18; Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, 22 December 2009).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

  Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that this distinction is discriminatory (see Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  In this connection, the Court recalls that in relation to the cases concerning the right to vote, that is, the so-called "active" aspect of the rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Py, cited above; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; (see Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR); see also, X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, p. 137; and Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  LARKOS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  Even where there is a difference in treatment, no discrimination will arise if the measure has objective and reasonable justification, pursues a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 29, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 17707/02

  MELNITCHENKO c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  Relevant considerations include (1) the assumption that a non-resident citizen is less directly or continuously concerned with, and has less knowledge of, a country's day-to-day problems; (2) the impracticality and sometimes undesirability (in some cases impossibility) of parliamentary candidates presenting the different electoral issues to citizens living elsewhere so as to secure the free expression of opinion; (3) the influence of resident citizens on the selection of candidates and on the formulation of their electoral programmes; and (4) the correlation between one's right to vote in parliamentary elections and being directly affected by the acts of the political bodies so elected (Melnychenko v. Ukraine, (no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X and authorities cited therein).
• EKMR, 15.09.1997 - 23450/94

  POLACCO ET GAROFALO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  In this connection, the Court recalls that in relation to the cases concerning the right to vote, that is, the so-called "active" aspect of the rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Py, cited above; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; (see Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR); see also, X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, p. 137; and Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175).
• EKMR, 28.02.1979 - 7730/76

  X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  In this connection, the Court recalls that in relation to the cases concerning the right to vote, that is, the so-called "active" aspect of the rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, the former Commission and the Court have taken the view that having to satisfy a residence or length-of-residence requirement in order to have or exercise the right to vote in elections is not, in principle, an arbitrary restriction of the right to vote and is therefore not incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, Py, cited above; Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI; (see Polacco and Garofalo v. Italy, no. 23450/94, Commission decision of 15 September 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR); see also, X v. the United Kingdom, application no. 7730/76, Commission decision of 28 February 1979, Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, p. 137; and Luksch v. Germany, application no. 35385/97, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, DR 89-B, p. 175).
• EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 35385/97

  LUKSCH contre l'ALLEMAGNE

• EGMR, 09.06.2016 - 41939/07

  PILAV v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The Court recalls that, in relation to cases concerning Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, it has found that a residence requirement was not disproportionate or irreconcilable with the underlying purposes of the right to free elections (see, for example, Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999 VI, and Ali Erel and Mustafa Damdelen v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 39973/07, 14 December 2010).