Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.M. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  The Government submitted at the outset that none of the applicants could be regarded as a victim of a violation of Articles 3 or 8. In particular, the Government referred to the Court's position on "potential victims" as set out in Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (22 October 1981, Series A no. 45), Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, Series A no. 142) and S.A.S. v. France ([GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  For example, it has accepted that an applicant enjoyed victim status under Article 34 of the Convention where he was not able to establish that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him, on account of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28); where a law against homosexual acts was capable of being applied to a certain category of the people, which included the applicant (see Norris, cited above §§ 31-33); where an alien's deportation had been ordered but not yet enforced and where enforcement of the order would have exposed him, in the receiving country, to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90, 91, Series A no. 161); and lastly where a court order restraining the corporate applicants, and their agents, from providing certain information to pregnant women was likely to indirectly affect applicants not belonging to the companies in question (see Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 44, Series A no. 246-A).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  They submitted, referring to the Court's case-law (Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31; Norris, cited above; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, ECHR 2008; Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, ECHR 2012; and S.A.S. v. France, cited above), that they were "potential victims" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.

 
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  For example, it has accepted that an applicant enjoyed victim status under Article 34 of the Convention where he was not able to establish that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him, on account of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28); where a law against homosexual acts was capable of being applied to a certain category of the people, which included the applicant (see Norris, cited above §§ 31-33); where an alien's deportation had been ordered but not yet enforced and where enforcement of the order would have exposed him, in the receiving country, to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90, 91, Series A no. 161); and lastly where a court order restraining the corporate applicants, and their agents, from providing certain information to pregnant women was likely to indirectly affect applicants not belonging to the companies in question (see Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 44, Series A no. 246-A).
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  They submitted, referring to the Court's case-law (Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31; Norris, cited above; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, ECHR 2008; Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, ECHR 2012; and S.A.S. v. France, cited above), that they were "potential victims" within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  The Government submitted at the outset that none of the applicants could be regarded as a victim of a violation of Articles 3 or 8. In particular, the Government referred to the Court's position on "potential victims" as set out in Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (22 October 1981, Series A no. 45), Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, Series A no. 142) and S.A.S. v. France ([GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  The Convention does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014), meaning that applicants may not complain against a provision of domestic law, a domestic practice or public acts simply because they appear to contravene the Convention.
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  For example, it has accepted that an applicant enjoyed victim status under Article 34 of the Convention where he was not able to establish that the legislation he complained of had actually been applied to him, on account of the secret nature of the measures it authorised (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 33, Series A no. 28); where a law against homosexual acts was capable of being applied to a certain category of the people, which included the applicant (see Norris, cited above §§ 31-33); where an alien's deportation had been ordered but not yet enforced and where enforcement of the order would have exposed him, in the receiving country, to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90, 91, Series A no. 161); and lastly where a court order restraining the corporate applicants, and their agents, from providing certain information to pregnant women was likely to indirectly affect applicants not belonging to the companies in question (see Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 44, Series A no. 246-A).
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  The present case must also be distinguished from that of Parrillo v. Italy ([GC], no. 46470/11, §§ 117-19, ECHR 2015), where the very existence of the contested legislation continuously and directly affected the applicant's private life as she had been unable to donate her embryos to research since that legislation had come into force.
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  The Government submitted at the outset that none of the applicants could be regarded as a victim of a violation of Articles 3 or 8. In particular, the Government referred to the Court's position on "potential victims" as set out in Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (22 October 1981, Series A no. 45), Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, Series A no. 142) and S.A.S. v. France ([GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21

  M.L. v. POLAND

  However, an individual may nevertheless argue that a law breaches his or her rights in the absence of a specific instance of enforcement, and thus claim to be a "victim", within the meaning of Article 34, if he or she is required either to modify his or her conduct or risk being prosecuted, or if he or she is a member of a category of persons who risk being directly affected by the legislation (see, in particular, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, §§ 57 and 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and the references cited therein, and A.M. and Others v. Poland (dec.), no. 4188/21, § 72, 16 May 2023).