Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BRITISH GURKHA WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BRITISH GURKHA WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  The Court has repeatedly held that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 does not guarantee as such any right to become the owner of property; nor does it guarantee, as such, any right to a pension of a particular amount (see, among many authorities, Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 77, ECHR 2009).

  As a general rule, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of nationality as compatible with the Convention (see Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 87, ECHR 2009).

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV, and Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 25762/07

  SCHWIZGEBEL v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  The Court has recognised that age might constitute "other status" for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts)), although it has not, to date, suggested that discrimination on grounds of age should be equated with other "suspect" grounds of discrimination.

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  However, the notion of discrimination implies that the group in question was not only treated differently, but also less favourably (see, for example, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, §§ 60-61, ECHR 2000-VIII), and in the present case the Government contend that this criterion was not met as the vast majority of Gurkhas (both those who retired before 1 July 1997 and those who retired on or after that date) would not have been in a significantly better financial position if they had been treated as if they had always been in the AFPS.
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, ECHR 2010 and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  As established in the Court's case-law, only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or "status", are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23).

• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  Sex ist auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig

  In this regard, the Court has recognised that age might constitute "other status" for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts)), although it has not, to date, suggested that discrimination on grounds of age should be equated with other "suspect" grounds of discrimination (British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 88, 15 September 2016).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11

  SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  à cet égard, nous observons que la majorité cherche à comparer la situation des intéressés à celle des soldats gurkhas requérants de l'affaire British Gurkha Welfare Society et autres c. Royaume-Uni (no 44818/11, 15 septembre 2016), où la Cour a conclu à la non-violation de l'article 14 de la Convention.

  (voir J.D. et A, précité, § 88, voir aussi Stec et autres, précité §§ 61-66, Runkee et White c. Royaume-Uni, nos 42949/98 et 53134/99, §§ 40-41, 10 mai 2007, §§ 40-41, Ponomaryovi c. Bulgarie, no 5335/05, § 52, CEDH 2011, et les références qui y figurent, et British Gurkha Welfare Society et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 44818/11, § 81, 15 septembre 2016).

• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  The Court will therefore generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (see, inter alia, Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI, and British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 62, 15 September 2016); that is not the case here.

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 74435/14

  KALFAGIANNIS AND POSPERT v. GREECE

  The same consideration applies to associations which, according to the Court's established case-law, will normally only be granted victim status if they have been directly affected by the measure in question (see British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 50, 15 September 2016; Association des amis de Saint Raphaël et de Fréjus et autres v. France (dec.), no. 45053/98, 29 February 2000; Dayras and Others and the association "SOS Sexisme" v. France, (dec.), no. 65390/01, 6 January 2005; and Grande Oriente d"Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy (no.2), no. 26740/02, § 20, 31 May 2007).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 37857/14

  YUSUFELI ILÇESINI GÜZELLESTIRME YASATMA KÜLTÜR VARLIKLARINI KORUMA DERNEGI v. …

  According to the Court's established case-law, associations will normally only be granted victim status if they have been directly affected by the measure in question (see Association des amis de Saint Raphaël et de Fréjus et autres v. France (dec.), no. 45053/98, 29 February 2000; Dayras and Others and the applicant association "SOS Sexisme" v. France (dec.), no. 65390/01, 6 January 2005; Grande Oriente d'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy (no. 2), no. 26740/02, § 20, 31 May 2007; and British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 50, 15 September 2016).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57101/10

  RIBAC v. SLOVENIA

  A wide margin is usually allowed to the State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy (see British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 62, 15 September 2016).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 32934/19

  SALTINYTE v. LITHUANIA

  The Court has recognised that age might constitute "other status" for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention (see British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 88, 15 September 2016).