Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76
DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).Moreover, we are unable to agree with the general principle set out in paragraph 116 and going back to Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (22 October 1981, Series A no. 45):.
"Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).".
Indeed, in the case of Dudgeon, and in connection with one aspect of his complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 (namely, different laws concerning male homosexual acts in various parts of the United Kingdom), the applicant himself had conceded that, if the Court were to find a breach of Article 8, then this particular question would cease to have the same importance (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 68, Series A no. 45).
- EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94
CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII)."Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).".
In Chassagnou the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 95, ECHR 1999-III) and in Timishev the Court found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 59, ECHR 2005-XII).
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00
TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII)."Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).".
In Chassagnou the Court found a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 95, ECHR 1999-III) and in Timishev the Court found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 59, ECHR 2005-XII).
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94
ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
There is also a requirement of promptness and reasonable speediness implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-04, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
The mere fact that the authorities were informed of the killing of an individual gives rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101 and 103, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in ensuring public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001-III; Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-95, ECHR 2001-VII; and Myronenko v. Ukraine, no. 15938/02, § 35, 18 February 2010). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in ensuring public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001-III; Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-95, ECHR 2001-VII; and Myronenko v. Ukraine, no. 15938/02, § 35, 18 February 2010). - EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II). - EGMR, 21.02.2006 - 52390/99
SEKER v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
In this connection it must be accepted that the more time passes without any news of the person who has disappeared, the greater the likelihood that he or she has died (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, § 226, ECHR 2004-III, and Seker v. Turkey, no. 52390/99, § 69, 21 February 2006). - EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 15938/02
MYRONENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08
However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in ensuring public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001-III; Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-95, ECHR 2001-VII; and Myronenko v. Ukraine, no. 15938/02, § 35, 18 February 2010).
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11
JELIC v. CROATIA
In view of the Court's analysis under that Article and the violation found, the Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case it is not necessary to examine any further complaint under Article 14 of the Convention (see, by comparison, Skendzic and Krznaric v. Croatia, no. 16212/08, § 118, 20 January 2011). - EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 29620/05
SEREMET v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA
59623/08 et al., 3 June 2010; and Skendzic and Krznaric v. Croatia, no. 16212/08, §§ 56-59, 20 January 2011). - EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 20245/10
MARINOV c. BULGARIE
La Cour rappelle que, au titre de l'article 2 de la Convention, les autorités de l'État ont l'obligation de mener une enquête officielle en cas de disparition dans des circonstances qui laissent à penser que la vie de la personne disparue se trouve en danger (Skendzic et Krznaric c. Croatie, no 16212/08, § 79, 20 janvier 2011).