Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTANTIN MARKIN c. RUSSIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires rejetées (victime solution du litige forclusion) Violation de l'art. 14+8 Non-violation de l'art. 34 Préjudice moral - réparation Dommage matériel - demande rejetée ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTANTIN MARKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objections dismissed (victim solution of the matter estoppel) Violation of Art. 14+8 No violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTANTIN MARKIN v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 37-1-b - Matter resolved);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Väterrechte: Auch Russlands Armee darf nicht Gender Stereotyping betreiben

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Konstantin Markin v. Russia

  [08.06.2011]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 30078/06
• EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (44)

• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  OYAL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  [4] This right has been based on Article 8 (Glass v. the United Kingdom, no. 61827/00, §§ 74-83, ECHR 2004-II; Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, §§ 107-108, ECHR 2007-I; and A, B and C v. Ireland [GC], no. 25579/05, § 245, ECHR 2010) or on Article 2 (Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 72, 23 March 2010).

  [17] See Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, p. 34, § 10, Series A no. 6 ("certain legal inequalities tend only to correct factual inequalities"), Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, §§ 51 and 66, ECHR 2006-VI, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 175, 181-182, ECHR 2007-IV, Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 147-148, 182, ECHR 2010, Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, § 48, 17 February 2011, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, 23 March 2010.

  In exceptional cases, an obligation of result may be imposed on the State for an indefinite period of time (Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, 23 March 2010).

• EGMR, 12.11.2008 - 34503/97

  Demir und Baykara ./. Türkei - Streikrecht für Beamte

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Finally, it must be noted that Article 11 § 2 states explicitly that it is permissible to impose lawful restrictions on the exercise by members of the armed forces of the right to freedom of assembly and association (see Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, § 119, 12 November 2008).

  [8] The Court derived the right to collective negotiations foreseen by Article 6 of the European Social Charter from the freedom to form trade unions, as provided for in Article 11 of the Convention, in spite of the fact that the respondent State had not accepted Article 6 when it ratified the Charter (Demir and Baykara v. Turkey [GC], no. 34503/97, §§ 153 and 154, ECHR 2008).

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Positive discrimination measures had to be proportionately tailored to the aim of correcting, compensating for, or mitigating the continuing effects of a hardship suffered by a historically disadvantaged group, such as women (see Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, §§ 37 and 40-43, 10 May 2007, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, §§ 61 and 66, ECHR 2006-VI).

  [17] See Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, p. 34, § 10, Series A no. 6 ("certain legal inequalities tend only to correct factual inequalities"), Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, §§ 51 and 66, ECHR 2006-VI, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 175, 181-182, ECHR 2007-IV, Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 147-148, 182, ECHR 2010, Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, § 48, 17 February 2011, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, 23 March 2010.

 
• EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 6268/08

  ANDRLE v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  He argued that as the prohibition of sex discrimination was of the same fundamental importance (he referred to Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, § 49, 17 February 2011; Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 39, Reports 1997-I; and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 78, Series A no. 94), the right not to be discriminated against on account of sex could not be waived either.

  [17] See Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, p. 34, § 10, Series A no. 6 ("certain legal inequalities tend only to correct factual inequalities"), Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, §§ 51 and 66, ECHR 2006-VI, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §§ 175, 181-182, ECHR 2007-IV, Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, §§ 147-148, 182, ECHR 2010, Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, § 48, 17 February 2011, and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, 23 March 2010.

• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  The Government further argued that States had a wide margin of appreciation in matters of national security, as well as in matters relating to general measures of economic and social strategy (they referred to James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98, and National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports 1997-VII).

  The Court has even been prepared to assess public policies on housing from the perspective of their impact on the rights of owners (James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 45, Series A no. 169; Spadea and Scalabrino v. Italy, 28 September 1995, § 29, Series A no. 315-B; and Hutten-Czapska v. Poland [GC], no. 35014/97, §§ 224-225, 239, ECHR 2006-VIII).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  He argued that as the prohibition of sex discrimination was of the same fundamental importance (he referred to Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, § 49, 17 February 2011; Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 39, Reports 1997-I; and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 78, Series A no. 94), the right not to be discriminated against on account of sex could not be waived either.

  The Court has added that the notion of discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 includes 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 (Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 82, Series A no. 94).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Questioning by the local authorities can very well be interpreted by the applicant as an attempt to intimidate him (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 131-133, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  For Article 14 to be applicable, it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the ambit of one or more of the provisions of the Convention (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B., cited above, §§ 47-48; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I, with further references).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 23954/94

  AKDENIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  The Court has emphasised on several occasions that it was in principle not appropriate for the authorities of a respondent State to enter into direct contact with an applicant in connection with his case before the Court (see Ryabov v. Russia, cited above, §§ 59-65; Fedotova, cited above, § 51; Akdeniz and Others v. Turkey, no. 23954/94, §§ 118-121, 31 May 2001; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 169-171, Reports 1998-VIII; and Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, § 105, Reports 1998-IV).
• EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

  HORVAT v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  As to the examples of cases where parental leave was granted to servicemen, the Court notes that only one such example was provided by the Government (see paragraph 117 above) and this does not suffice, in the Court's view, to show the existence of settled domestic practice (see, for a similar approach, Kozhokar v. Russia, no. 33099/08, § 93, 16 December 2010, and Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 44, ECHR 2001-VIII).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  FRETTE v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 39392/98

  L. AND V. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

  Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08

  KOZHOKAR v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 68959/01

  Streikverbot für Staatsdiener: Gewerkschaften sehen volles Streikrecht für Beamte …
• EGMR, 24.08.1993 - 14399/88

  MASSA v. ITALY
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 7205/02

  STANKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 16798/90

  LÓPEZ OSTRA c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 18.01.2001 - 27238/95

  CHAPMAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 12945/87

  HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECE
• EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72

  SCHMIDT ET DAHLSTRÖM c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 28.09.1995 - 12868/87

  SPADEA ET SCALABRINO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

  VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 36448/97

  MARZARI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 8562/79

  FELDBRUGGE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 67336/01

  DANILENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

  Inze ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 29.05.1986 - 9384/81

  Deumeland ./. Deutschland
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  IGLESIAS GIL ET A.U.I. c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 18114/02

  HERMI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98

  RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 32377/96
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.09.2017 - C-372/16

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Saugmandsgaard Øe fallen private Scheidungen nicht …

  117 Unter dem gleichen Blickwinkel betont das Urteil des EGMR vom 22. März 2012, Konstantin Markin/Russland (ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0322JUD003007806, § 150), dass "im Hinblick auf die grundlegende Bedeutung, die das Verbot der Diskriminierung wegen des Geschlechts hat, ein Verzicht auf das Recht, nicht auf diese Weise diskriminiert zu werden, nicht akzeptiert werden kann, würde er doch bedeutenden öffentlichen Interessen zuwiderlaufen".
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.01.2021 - C-742/19

  Ministrstvo za obrambo

  85 Vgl. entsprechend EGMR, Urteil vom 22. März 2012, Konstantin Markin/Russland, ECHR:2012:0322JUD003007806, § 148. Gleiches könnte für bestimmte zivile Armeebedienstete gelten.
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 16986/12

  ENACHE c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour examinera ce grief sous le seul angle de l'article 14 combiné avec l'article 8 de la Convention (mutatis mutandis, Konstantin Markin c. Russie [GC], no 30078/06, § 130, CEDH 2012 (extraits)).