Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LARKOS v. CYPRUS

  Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 14+8 Not necessary to examine Art. 14+P1-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LARKOS c. CHYPRE

  Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 14+8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14+P1-1 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 21.05.1997 - 29515/95
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  It should be remembered that the aim of the Convention is to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see, for example, the Artico v. Italy judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 15-16, § 33).
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  However, it suffices for the purposes of the application of Article 14 that the facts relied on in the instant case fall within the ambit of Article 8 and the relevance of that Article cannot be denied in view of the judgment of the District Court of Nicosia ordering Mr Larkos to leave his home (see, mutatis mutandis, the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, § 36).
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 12083/86

  BELDJOUDI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  I agree that the suffering caused by this situation must be treated by the Court as "non-pecuniary damage" (see, mutatis mutandis, the Beldjoudi v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A, p. 30, § 86).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19465/92

  NASRI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  While - for reasons which need not be set out here - it is unsatisfactory to apply the same reasoning in cases concerning the deportation of aliens (see the Beldjoudi judgment cited above and the Nasri v. France judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 320-B, and my concurring opinion in the case of H.L.R. v. France, opinion of the Commission, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 770), applying that reasoning in the instant case would in my view enable the rights of the applicant and his family not to be evicted from their home to be better protected.

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  La Cour rappelle qu'une distinction est discriminatoire si elle « manque de justification objective et raisonnable ", c'est-à-dire si elle ne poursuit pas un « but légitime'ou s'il n'existe pas de « rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité'entre les moyens employés et le but visé (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Larkos c. Chypre [GC], no 29515/95, § 29, CEDH 1999-I ; Stec et autres, précité, § 51).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 56030/07

  Kirchenkritische Mitarbeiter - Keine Beschäftigung für religionskritischen …

  That being said, in exercising the European supervision incumbent on it, it cannot remain passive where a national court's interpretation of a legal act, be it a testamentary disposition, a private contract, a public document, a statutory provision or an administrative practice appears unreasonable, arbitrary or, as in the present case, blatantly inconsistent with the principles underlying the Convention (see Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no 29515/95, §§ 30-31, ECHR 1999-I, and Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra, no. 69498/01, § 59, ECHR 2004-VIII )." Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece, no. 56759/08, § 101, 3 May 2011.
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  The Court has to consider whether the subject matter of the present case falls within the ambit of Article 8. The Court does not find it necessary to determine the notions of "private life" or "family life" because, in any event, the applicant's complaint relates to the manner in which the alleged difference in treatment adversely affected the enjoyment of his right to respect for his home guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention (see Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EGMR, 07.02.2013 - 16574/08

  FABRIS c. FRANCE

  That being said, in exercising the European supervision incumbent on it, it cannot remain passive where a national court's interpretation of a legal act, be it a testamentary disposition, a private contract, a public document, a statutory provision or an administrative practice appears unreasonable, arbitrary or blatantly inconsistent with the prohibition of discrimination established by Article 14 and more broadly with the principles underlying the Convention (see Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, §§ 30-31, ECHR 1999-I; Pla and Puncernau, cited above, § 59; and Karaman v. Turkey, no. 6489/03, § 30, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  ORSUS ET AUTRES c. CROATIE

  According to the Court's case-law, a difference in treatment is discriminatory if "it has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality" between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see, among many other authorities, Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 29, ECHR 1999-I; Stec and Others, cited above, § 51; and D.H. and Others, cited above, § 196).
• EGMR, 30.09.2003 - 40892/98

  KOUA POIRREZ c. FRANCE

  Moreover the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see, inter alia, Gaygusuz, cited above, p. 1142, § 42; Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, § 29, ECHR 1999-I; and Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 3976/05

  SERIFE YIGIT c. TURQUIE

  La justification objective et raisonnable fera défaut si pareille distinction ne poursuit pas un but légitime ou s'il n'y a pas un rapport raisonnable de proportionnalité entre les moyens employés et le but visé (Larkos c. Chypre [GC], no 29515/95, § 29, CEDH 1999-I).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 7205/07

  CLIFT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The applicant further referred to a number of cases in which he claimed that the Court had found Article 14 to be applicable without insisting on a "personal characteristic" (citing, inter alia, Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, Reports 1996-IV; National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium, 27 October 1975, Series A no. 19; Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999-I; and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 52336/99

  St. Salvator (München)

  Die Beschwerdeführerin erwidert, der Gerichtshof habe in Bezug auf Wohnungen, die von den Betroffenen nur angemietet waren, ausdrücklich den Status als Eigentum anerkannt, ohne allerdings für notwendig zu erachten, sich zu einer Verletzung des Artikels 1 des Protokolls Nr. 1 zu äußern, nachdem er eine Verletzung des Artikels 8 der Konvention festgestellt hatte (siehe Larkos ./. Zypern [GK], Nr. 29515/95, CEDH 1999-I und Blecic ./. Kroatien , Nr. 59532/00, 29. Juli 2004 (Urteil der Kammer)).
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  The Court has found "other status", inter alia, where the impugned distinction was based on military rank (Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22); the type of outline planning permission held by the applicant (Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222); whether the applicant's landlord was the State or a private owner (Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999-I); the kind of paternity the applicant enjoyed (Paulík v. Slovakia, no. 10699/05, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts)); the type of sentence imposed on a prisoner (Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, 13 July 2010); the nationality or immigration status of the applicant's son (Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, ECHR 2011); or ownership of large or small parcels of land (Chassagnou, cited above).
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 7710/02

  GRZELAK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 11146/11

  HORVÁTH AND KISS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 03.05.2011 - 56759/08

  NEGREPONTIS-GIANNISIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 66746/01

  CONNORS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 56759/08

  NEGREPONTIS-GIANNISIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 14717/04

  BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 25446/06

  YORDANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2011 - 16574/08

  FABRIS v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 16117/02

  AUSTRIANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 9443/10

  MARIAN CHIRITA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 9106/06

  GENDERDOC-M v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 9957/08

  KOROSIDOU c. GRECE
• EGMR, 08.03.2007 - 20335/04

  X c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 39973/07

  EREL AND DAMDELEN v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03

  KORELC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 33977/06

  MEIDANIS c. GRECE