Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 4+4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 6, Art. 41, Art. 14+4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Violation de l'art. 14+4-3-d Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14+6 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZARB ADAMI v. MALTA
Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 4+4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 6, Art. 41, Art. 14+4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
Violation of Art. 14+4-3-d Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings ... - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 24.05.2005 - 17209/02
- EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
- EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 17209/02
Wird zitiert von ... (40) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
This opinion was confirmed by the principles laid down by the Court in Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany (18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B) and Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, Series A no. 70).In the case of Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany (18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B), the applicant complained that he was obliged to pay a fire service levy under an Act which made it compulsory for men, but not for women, to serve in the fire brigade or pay a financial contribution in lieu of such service.
However, I am not sure whether the "traditional" approach to the interpretation of Article 4, as expressed in Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, Series A no. 70) and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany (18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B), represents the most convincing way of arriving at those conclusions.
Like the dissenting judges in Karlheinz Schmidt (18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, a judgment that is now twelve years old), I fail to see how Article 14, which is dependent for its existence on a recognised right (see paragraph 42 of the present judgment), can be linked to sub-paragraph (d) of Article 4 § 3 for the following reasons:.
- EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
This opinion was confirmed by the principles laid down by the Court in Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany (18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B) and Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, Series A no. 70).In Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, Series A no. 70), the Court was required to determine whether the obligation imposed on the applicant, as a pupil advocate, to represent a defendant without remuneration and without being reimbursed his expenses was in violation of Article 4 of the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14. In assessing whether the work the applicant was obliged to perform amounted to "forced or compulsory labour" within the meaning of Article 4 § 2, the Court held that the structure of Article 4 was informative on this point:.
However, I am not sure whether the "traditional" approach to the interpretation of Article 4, as expressed in Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, Series A no. 70) and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany (18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B), represents the most convincing way of arriving at those conclusions.
He was required to perform jury service on three occasions over a seventeen-year period, which is not unreasonable (Mr Van der Mussele was required to act as a court-assigned lawyer approximately fifty times in three years (!) under an obligation which "... was founded on a conception of social solidarity and cannot be regarded as unreasonable" and in respect of which "the burden imposed on the applicant was not disproportionate" (see Van der Mussele v. Belgium, 23 November 1983, § 39, Series A no. 70).
- EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73316/01
SILIADIN v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
1 and 4, Article 4 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, § 112, ECHR 2005-VII).Finally, it would respond to the developing trends of modern societies: whilst it is now very difficult to find situations of "classic" forced labour or servitude (the 2005 Siliadin v. France case being the only recent example (no. 73316/01, ECHR 2005-VII)), there may be more controversies surrounding obligations enumerated in paragraph 3 of Article 4.
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
In other words, the notion of discrimination includes in general cases where a person or group is treated, without proper justification, less favourably than another, even though the more favourable treatment is not called for by the Convention (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 82, Series A no. 94).33-34, § 9, and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94).
- EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
Article 14 safeguards individuals, placed in analogous situations, from discrimination (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31). - EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
Moreover, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before it could regard a difference of treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Willis, cited above, § 39, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263). - EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79
Inze ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and its background (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 40, Series A no. 87, and Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, § 41, Series A no. 126), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court. - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
A difference of treatment in the exercise of a right laid down by the Convention must not only pursue a legitimate aim: Article 14 will also be violated when it is clearly established that there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, for example, Petrovic, cited above, § 30, and Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1986, § 177, Series A no. 102). - EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79
RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and its background (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 40, Series A no. 87, and Inze v. Austria, 28 October 1987, § 41, Series A no. 126), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court. - EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97
WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
The Court's case-law establishes that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV). - EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96
Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17056/06
MICALLEF v. MALTA
Ainsi, le grief dont on saisit la Cour doit d'abord avoir été soulevé, au moins en substance, dans les formes et délais prescrits par le droit interne, devant les juridictions nationales appropriées (Zarb Adami c. Malte (déc.), no 17209/02, 24 mai 2005). - EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02
Opuz ./. Türkei
(...)La Cour a également admis que pouvait être considérée comme discriminatoire une politique ou une mesure générale qui avait des effets préjudiciables disproportionnés sur un groupe de personnes, même si elle ne visait pas spécifiquement ce groupe (Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 24746/94, § 154, 4 mai 2001 ; Hoogendijk c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 58461/00, 6 janvier 2005), et qu'une discrimination potentiellement contraire à la Convention pouvait résulter d'une situation de fait (Zarb Adami c. Malte, no 17209/02, § 76, CEDH 2006-....). - EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06
Konstantin Markin ./. Russland
The Court had, however, held on several occasions that prejudices and stereotypes were not sufficient justification for discriminatory treatment (they referred to Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, §§ 81 and 82, ECHR 2006-VIII; L. and V. v. Austria, nos.
- EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02
STUMMER c. AUTRICHE
Cela dit, le paragraphe 3 contribue à l'interprétation du paragraphe 2. Ses quatre alinéas, par-delà leur diversité, reposent sur les idées maîtresses d'intérêt général, de solidarité sociale et de normalité (Van der Mussele, précité, § 38 ; voir également Karlheinz Schmidt c. Allemagne, 18 juillet 1994, § 22, série A no 291-B, et Zarb Adami c. Malte, no 17209/02, § 44, CEDH 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 30.04.2009 - 13444/04
GLOR v. SWITZERLAND
Instead, it must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment, and that this distinction is discriminatory (see, for example, National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 88, Reports 1997-VII, and Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 71, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03
ORSUS ET AUTRES c. CROATIE
Furthermore, discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 17120/09
DHAHBI c. ITALIE
Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of them (see, among many other authorities, Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 33, Reports 1997-I; Petrovic, cited above, § 22; and Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 42, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 5335/05
PONOMARYOVI v. BULGARIA
Elle doit seulement vérifier si, l'Etat ayant décidé de lui-même d'offrir cet enseignement gratuitement, il peut en refuser l'accès à un groupe d'individus distinct, car la notion de discrimination englobe les cas dans lesquels un individu ou un groupe se voit, sans justification adéquate, moins bien traité qu'un autre, même si la Convention ne requiert pas le traitement plus favorable (Abdulaziz, Cabales et Balkandali c. Royaume-Uni, 28 mai 1985, § 82, série A no 94, Ünal Tekeli c. Turquie, no 29865/96, § 51 in limine, CEDH 2004-X (extraits), Zarb Adami c. Malte, no 17209/02, § 73, CEDH 2006-VIII,; Kafkaris c. Chypre [GC], no 21906/04, § 161 in limine, CEDH 2008-(...), et J.M. c. Royaume-Uni, précité, § 45 in fine). - EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 7186/09
DI TRIZIO c. SUISSE
La Cour a également admis que pouvait être considérée comme discriminatoire une politique ou une mesure générale qui a des effets préjudiciables disproportionnés sur un groupe de personnes, même si elle ne vise pas spécifiquement ce groupe (Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 24746/94, § 154, 4 mai 2001) et qu'une discrimination potentiellement contraire à la Convention pouvait résulter d'une situation de fait (Zarb Adami c. Malte, no 17209/02, § 76, CEDH 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
BIAO v. DENMARK
Furthermore, discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 25762/07
SCHWIZGEBEL v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 11146/11
HORVÁTH AND KISS v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 14717/04
BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 05.06.2008 - 32526/05
SAMPANIS ET AUTRES c. GRECE
- EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02
BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06
GRAZIANI-WEISS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07
VALIULIENE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 15766/03
Oršuš u.a. ./. Kroatien
- EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 76943/11
PAROISSE GRÉCO-CATHOLIQUE LUPENI ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 2344/02
DRITSAS ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08
A. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 14796/11
DEGUARA CARUANA GATTO AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 45661/99
CARABULEA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 04.01.2008 - 23800/06
SHELLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 20287/10
SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 664/06
LOSONCI ROSE ET ROSE c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 18629/05
MAGNETTI S.R.L. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 18665/05
I.T.E.R. S.c.a.r.l. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 65039/01
SCHIAVONE c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 46575/09
BELLIZZI v. MALTA
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 48703/08
VEREIN GEGEN TIERFABRIKEN SCHWEIZ (VgT) c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 31303/08
MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 07.09.2010 - 18661/05
SOCIETA EDILIZIA SUBALPINA S.R.L. c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 28800/06
DIB c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 4374/05
HALIL ADEM HASAN v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 50936/12
M.D. v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 43259/07
BUCHA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 23360/08
MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 38797/07
GREEN AND FARHAT v. MALTA
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 29647/08
KABWE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM