Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,31729
EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,31729)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.06.2006 - 17209/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,31729)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. Juni 2006 - 17209/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,31729)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,31729) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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 PDF

    (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

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.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht