Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  \

  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  \

  [MAC] Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  \

  [MAC] Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  \

  [ALB] Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHDIOCESE v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 34144/05

  EMIN ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 57, ECHR 2013 and Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, § 27, 27 April 2010), considers that the applicant's complaints should be analysed from the standpoint of Article 11 of the Convention read in the light of Article 9 (see Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 18, 27 March 2008).

  The Government added that the terms "Greek" and "Pec Patriarchy" included in the applicant association's name suggested some connection of the applicant association with Greece and Serbia (see paragraph 91 above) (see, mutatis mutandis, Emin and Others v. Greece, no. 34144/05, § 8, 27 March 2008 and Bekir-Ousta and Others v. Greece, no. 35151/05, § 8, 11 October 2007, as to the origin of the founders of the associations).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its above findings under paragraph 120, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 26698/05

  TOURKIKI ENOSI XANTHIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  The Court notes that at no stage in the registration proceedings and in the proceedings before it was it alleged that the applicant association advocated the use of violence or any anti-democratic means in pursuing its aims (see Tourkiki Enosi Xanthis and Others v. Greece, no. 26698/05, § 56, 27 March 2008).

 
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 14.12.1999 - 38178/97

  SERIF c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  The Court's case-law in this respect is clear: the role of the authorities in a situation of conflict between or within religious groups is not to remove the cause of tension by eliminating pluralism, but to ensure that the competing groups tolerate each other (see Serif v. Greece, no. 38178/97, § 53, ECHR 1999-IX).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10

  Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  The harmonious interaction of persons and groups with varied identities is essential for achieving social cohesion (see Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 109, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 76836/01

  KIMLYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  Secondly, besides freedom of religion and non-discrimination it also concerns an alleged violation of freedom of association under Article 11 of the Convention, which safeguards associative life against unjustified State interference (see Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, § 81, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  BRANCHE DE MOSCOU DE L'ARMEE DU SALUT c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  This is because the central issue is the non-recognition by the respondent State of the applicant as a religious (legal) entity and its inability accordingly to act collectively in the religious sphere (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, §§ 74 and 75, ECHR 2006-XI, and Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 64, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 18147/02

  CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MOSCOW v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 3532/07

  This is because the central issue is the non-recognition by the respondent State of the applicant as a religious (legal) entity and its inability accordingly to act collectively in the religious sphere (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, §§ 74 and 75, ECHR 2006-XI, and Church of Scientology Moscow v. Russia, no. 18147/02, § 64, 5 April 2007).

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 64220/19

  Föderation der Aleviten-Gemeinden in Österreich ./. Österreich

  Nevertheless, although States do have a right to scrutiny concerning the conformity of the objectives and activities of a religious association with the rules established by legislation, they must do so in a manner compatible with their obligations under the Convention and subject to the purview of the Court (see "Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese (Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pec Patriarchy)" v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 3532/07, § 94, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13

  Blasphemie-Urteil gegen polnische Sängerin nicht rechtens

  As a result, religious peace and the harmonious coexistence of various beliefs and philosophical convictions may be undermined (compare Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, §§ 92-93, ECHR 2004-I, and "Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese (Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pe Patriarchy)" v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 3532/07, § 95, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 25.07.2019 - 27309/14

  JAFAROV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  States have a right to satisfy themselves that an association's aim and activities are in conformity with the rules laid down in legislation, but they must do so in a manner compatible with their obligations under the Convention and subject to review by the Convention institutions (see, among other authorities, Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no. 44158/98, § 88, ECHR 2004-I; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 34960/04, § 33, 18 October 2011; and "Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese (Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pec Patriarchy)" v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 3532/07, § 94, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 41817/10

  CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE NKR v. ARMENIA

  The Court reiterates that a refusal by the domestic authorities to grant legal-entity status to an association, religious or otherwise, of individuals amounts to an interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of association (see "Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese (Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pec Patriarchy)" v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 3532/07, § 78, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 29.11.2018 - 52849/09

  STAVROPEGIC MONASTERY OF SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM v.

  Other statutory provisions and domestic practice relevant to the present case were described in the case of the "Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese" (see Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese (Greek-Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the Pec Patriarchy) v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 3532/07, §§ 42-46, 49-53, 56 and 58, 16 November 2017, the "OOA case").