Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Király und Dömötör gegen Ungarn
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (13)
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04
S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
The Court has accepted in the past that an individual's ethnic identity must be regarded as another such element (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008-V, and Ciubotaru v. Moldova, no. 27138/04, § 49, 27 April 2010).The Government have not referred to any decisions or judgments of the Constitutional Court which, like this Court's case-law, inferred from the right to private life (protected by the Fundamental Law under Article VI (1)) the protection of an individual's ethnic identity (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008) and the positive obligation to adopt measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of individuals" relationships with each other (see Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013).
Interestingly enough, this conclusion, on the basis of which the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been dismissed, does not refer to any other case of the Court (the references, in paragraph 47, to Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV) and Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013) and, in paragraph 48, to S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008) and Söderman v. Sweden ([GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013) pertain to other aspects of the admissibility of the application than the one relating to the constitutional complaint; by the way, the United Kingdom and Sweden, the respondent States in the last two cases, do not have a constitutional complaint system).
- EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
The Court has accepted in the past that an individual's ethnic identity must be regarded as another such element (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008-V, and Ciubotaru v. Moldova, no. 27138/04, § 49, 27 April 2010).The Government have not referred to any decisions or judgments of the Constitutional Court which, like this Court's case-law, inferred from the right to private life (protected by the Fundamental Law under Article VI (1)) the protection of an individual's ethnic identity (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008) and the positive obligation to adopt measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of individuals" relationships with each other (see Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013).
Interestingly enough, this conclusion, on the basis of which the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been dismissed, does not refer to any other case of the Court (the references, in paragraph 47, to Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV) and Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013) and, in paragraph 48, to S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008) and Söderman v. Sweden ([GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013) pertain to other aspects of the admissibility of the application than the one relating to the constitutional complaint; by the way, the United Kingdom and Sweden, the respondent States in the last two cases, do not have a constitutional complaint system).
- EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08
MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case, or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV and Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).Interestingly enough, this conclusion, on the basis of which the Government's objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been dismissed, does not refer to any other case of the Court (the references, in paragraph 47, to Akdivar and Others v. Turkey (16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV) and Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 58, ECHR 2013) and, in paragraph 48, to S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008) and Söderman v. Sweden ([GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013) pertain to other aspects of the admissibility of the application than the one relating to the constitutional complaint; by the way, the United Kingdom and Sweden, the respondent States in the last two cases, do not have a constitutional complaint system).
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10
VONA v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
More generally, as the Court has held before in the context of Article 11, the reliance of an association on paramilitary demonstrations which express racial division and implicitly call for race-based action must have an intimidating effect on members of an ethnic minority, especially when they are in their homes and as such constitute a captive audience (see Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, § 66, ECHR 2013).This contradiction is even more obvious in the light of quite unfavourable observations of international human rights monitoring bodies as regards the increase, in Hungary, of racism and intolerance towards the Roma people (see, for example, Vona v. Hungary, no. 35943/10, §§ 26-28, ECHR 2013; for the latest assessment see the Opinion of 19 September 2016 of the Council of Europe's Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities).
- EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 42461/13
KARÁCSONY ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
To wit, in the recent case against the same respondent State, Karácsony and Others v. Hungary ([GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, ECHR 2016; by the way, not even hinted at in the present judgment), the Grand Chamber accepted the applicants" submission that the new Constitutional Court Act had introduced three types of constitutional complaint: (i) the one under section 26(1); (ii) the one under section 27; and (iii) the one under section 26(2) (ibid., §§ 71 and 77). - EGMR, 16.03.2000 - 23144/93
OZGUR GUNDEM c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
The key factors in the Court's assessment were whether the statements had been made against a tense political or social background (see Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, §§ 57-60, Reports 1997-VII; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 52 and 62, ECHR 1999-IV; Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 33, 10 July 2008, and Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 66 and 76, 16 July 2009), whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could have been seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification for violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58), and the manner in which the statements had been made, and their capacity - direct or indirect - to lead to harmful consequences (see Karatas v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23168/94, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 26682/95
SÜREK c. TURQUIE (N° 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
The key factors in the Court's assessment were whether the statements had been made against a tense political or social background (see Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, §§ 57-60, Reports 1997-VII; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 52 and 62, ECHR 1999-IV; Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 33, 10 July 2008, and Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 66 and 76, 16 July 2009), whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could have been seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification for violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58), and the manner in which the statements had been made, and their capacity - direct or indirect - to lead to harmful consequences (see Karatas v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23168/94, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98
BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
Lastly, they relied on the judgment of Bensaid v. the United Kingdom to point out that the Court's case-law did not exclude that treatment which did not reach the severity required to bring it within the ambit of Article 3 might nonetheless breach Article 8 in its private-life aspect where there were sufficiently adverse effects on physical and moral integrity (Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-I). - EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
The Court's case-law does not rule out that treatment which does not reach a level of severity sufficient to bring it within the ambit of Article 3 may nonetheless breach the private-life aspect of Article 8, if the effects on the applicant's physical and moral integrity are sufficiently adverse (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C and R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, § 79, 12 April 2016). - EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 40721/08
FÁBER v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
The key factors in the Court's assessment were whether the statements had been made against a tense political or social background (see Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, §§ 57-60, Reports 1997-VII; Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, §§ 52 and 62, ECHR 1999-IV; Soulas and Others v. France, no. 15948/03, § 33, 10 July 2008, and Féret v. Belgium, no. 15615/07, §§ 66 and 76, 16 July 2009), whether the statements, fairly construed and seen in their immediate or wider context, could have been seen as a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification for violence, hatred or intolerance (see, among other authorities, Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, § 64, ECHR 2000-III and Fáber v. Hungary, no. 40721/08, §§ 52 and 56-58), and the manner in which the statements had been made, and their capacity - direct or indirect - to lead to harmful consequences (see Karatas v. Turkey ([GC], no. 23168/94, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23168/94
KARATAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 15615/07
FERET c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 15948/03
SOULAS ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15
BEIZARAS AND LEVICKAS v. LITHUANIA
The Court has likewise accepted that criminal-law measures were required with respect to direct verbal assaults and physical threats motivated by discriminatory attitudes (see R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, §§ 80 and 84-85, 12 April 2016; Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 76, 17 January 2017; and Alkovic v. Montenegro, no. 66895/10, §§ 8, 11, 65 and 69, 5 December 2017). - EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 81249/17
ALLOUCHE c. FRANCE
Or, en dépit d'injures, de menaces écrites de mort, de viol et de violences, dont le caractère antisémite pouvait être difficilement remis en cause, et malgré l'orientation initiale de l'enquête en ce sens, B. a été déféré devant le tribunal correctionnel pour répondre uniquement de menaces de mort « simples'(voir Király et Dömötör c. Hongrie, no 10851/13, § 78 in fine, 17 janvier 2017, Kreyndlin et autres, § 56, et Sabalic, § 105, précités). - EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 8257/13
Blasphemie-Urteil gegen polnische Sängerin nicht rechtens
They could legitimately be perceived by these religious groups as severely impacting the dignity, sense of identity and feelings of selfworth and selfconfidence of the members of those groups (compare Aksu v. Turkey [GC], nos. 4149/04 and 41029/04, § 58 ECHR 2012; Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 41, 17 January 2017; and Behar and Gutman v. Bulgaria, no. 29335/13, § 65, 16 February 2021).
- EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19
GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
The Court considers that the applicants' allegations summarised in paragraph 76 above, insofar as they concern an alleged interference with their private life on account of an assault on their physical and moral integrity motivated by hatred, fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 31, 5 March 2009; R.B. v. Hungary, cited above, §§ 79-80; and Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 43, 17 January 2017). - EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 1759/08
KABOGLU ET ORAN c. TURQUIE
Elle rappelle à cet égard qu'un traitement qui ne présente pas la gravité d'un traitement relevant des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention peut néanmoins nuire à l'intégrité physique et morale au point d'enfreindre l'article 8 sous l'angle de la vie privée (Király et Dömötör c. Hongrie, no 10851/13, § 42, 17 janvier 2017). - EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 66895/10
ALKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
This is not an obligation of result, but one of means" (see Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 79, 17 January 2017). - EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15
MENDREI v. HUNGARY
Finally, in Király and Dömötör v. Hungary (no. 10851/13, § 49, 17 January 2017), the Court did not require the applicants to have approached the Constitutional Court for the reason that "the Government have failed to prove that there is a constitutional right or a domestic judicial practice allowing an individual to seek, with any prospect of success, the intervention of the police for the protection of private life".