Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAPOTNIK v. ROMANIA

  No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NAPOTNIK v. ROMANIA

  Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EuGH, 08.11.1990 - 177/88

  Dekker / Stichting Vormingscentrum voor Jong Volwassenen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  In the Dekker judgment (8 November 1990, C-177/88, ECLI:EU:C:1990:383), the CJEU ruled that a refusal to employ a woman who met the conditions for a post because she was pregnant constituted direct discrimination on grounds of sex.

  "3 It follows from the provisions of the Directive quoted above that the dismissal of a female worker on account of pregnancy constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex, as is a refusal to appoint a pregnant woman (see judgment of today's date in Case C-177/88 Dekker v VJM-Centrum [1990] ECR I-3941).

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-VI; and Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, § 70, 22 March 2016).
• EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  J.D. AND A v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  The prohibition deriving from Article 14 will therefore also give rise to positive obligations for the Contracting States to make necessary distinctions between persons or groups whose circumstances are relevantly and significantly different (see J.D. and A. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, § 84, 24 October 2019 with further references, notably Thlimmenos, cited above, § 44).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  This means that very weighty reasons would have to be advanced before a difference in treatment on the grounds of sex could be regarded as being compatible with the Convention (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 78, Series A no. 94, and Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, no. 17484/15, § 46, 25 July 2017).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 16986/12

  ALEXANDRU ENACHE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  The Court has acknowledged in its case-law, albeit indirectly, the need for the protection of pregnancy and motherhood (see, mutatis mutandis, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 82, 24 January 2017; Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 132, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Alexandru Enache v. Romania, no. 16986/12, §§ 68 and 76-77, 3 October 2017; and Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  Indeed, the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States, without an objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV; Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
• EuGH, 14.07.1994 - C-32/93

  Webb / EMO Air Cargo

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  In the Webb judgment (14 July 1994, C-32/93, ECLI:EU:C:1994:300), the CJEU found that the situation of a pregnant woman could not be compared with that of a man who was absent because of illness.
• EuGH, 04.10.2001 - C-109/00

  Tele Danmark

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  In the Tele Danmark judgment (4 October 2001, C-109/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:513), the CJEU extended the protection for absence due to pregnancy to temporary contracts.
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  Having regard to the substance of the applicant's complaints, and regardless of whether the above-mentioned complaints and/or arguments raised under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention fall to be examined within the context of the present application, the Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, ECHR 2018), will examine the application from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention alone.
• EuGH, 12.07.1984 - 184/83

  Hofmann / Barmer Ersatzkasse

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  In the Hofmann judgment (12 July 1984, C-184/83, ECLI:EU:C:1984:273), which concerned paternity allowance, the CJEU found as follows:.
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
• EuGH, 08.11.1990 - 179/88

  Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund / Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening

• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 71200/17

  BRAZAUSKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  More precisely, the Court must determine whether the reasons put forward by the authorities to justify the treatment applied to the applicant were relevant and sufficient (see, mutatis mutandis, Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 78, 20 October 2020).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 27094/20

  NURCAN BAYRAKTAR c. TÜRKIYE

  Elle rappelle avoir déjà considéré que seules les femmes peuvent faire l'objet d'un traitement différent en raison de leur grossesse et que, pour cette raison, une telle différence de traitement s'analyse en une discrimination directe fondée sur le sexe si elle n'est pas justifiée (Napotnik c. Roumanie, no 33139/13, § 77, 20 octobre 2020).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 34591/19

  TOPLAK AND MRAK v. SLOVENIA

  For this threshold to be reached, a measure must produce a particularly prejudicial impact on certain persons as a result of a protected ground, attaching to their situation and in light of the ground of discrimination invoked (see Ádám and Others v. Romania, nos. 81114/17 and 5 others, § 87, 13 October 2020, and Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 73, 20 October 2020).

 
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 8701/21

  PINKAS AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Therefore, in applying the same term under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the Court sees no reason to depart from the established interpretation of "discrimination" (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009, and Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 70, 20 October 2020).
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 73548/17

  X AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  In applying the same term under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, the Court therefore sees no reason to depart from the established interpretation of "discrimination" (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009, and Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 69, 20 October 2020).
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 23077/19

  ARNAR HELGI LÁRUSSON v. ICELAND

  For this threshold to be reached, a measure must produce a particularly prejudicial impact on certain people as a result of a protected ground, attaching to their situation and in light of the ground of discrimination invoked (see Ádám and Others v. Romania, nos. 81114/17 and 5 others, § 87, 13 October 2020, and Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 73, 20 October 2020).
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 29907/16

  NEGOVANOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Having regard to the substance of the applicants' complaints and the relevant context, however, the Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of any case before it (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, ECHR 2018), is of the opinion that all of the complaints in the present case should be examined from the standpoint of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 only (see, mutatis mutandis, Napotnik v. Romania, no. 33139/13, § 52, 20 October 2020).