Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUBERINA v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Reopening of case (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GUBERINA v. CROATIA

  Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 23682/13

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  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.
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  This is only the case, however, if such policy or measure has no "objective and reasonable" justification, that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality" between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 161, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 41838/11

  R.Sz. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  However, any such measures must be implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and comply with the requirements of proportionality (see R.Sz. v. Hungary, no. 41838/11, § 54, 2 July 2013).
• EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 13378/05

  Burden und Burden ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, for example, Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 59, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  The Court has already identified a number of such vulnerable groups that suffered different treatment on account of their characteristic or status, including disability (see Glor, cited above, § 84; Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, § 42, 20 May 2010; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 63, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-VI; and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  The Court has also accepted that a general policy or measure that has disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group, and that discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV; and Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 388, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  It applies also to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Convention Article, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide (see, among many other authorities, E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97

  MAZUREK c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 23682/13

  In the circumstances of the present case, the Court is of the view that the inequality of treatment of which the applicant claimed to be a victim has been sufficiently taken into account in the above assessment that has led to the finding of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Accordingly, it finds that - while this complaint is also admissible - there is no cause for a separate examination of the same facts from the standpoint of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-II; and Efe, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA
• EuGH, 17.07.2008 - C-303/06

  DAS GEMEINSCHAFTSRECHT SCHÜTZT EINEN ARBEITNEHMER, DER WEGEN EINER BEHINDERUNG …
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 31360/10

  TARBUK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 22688/09

  JACIMOVIC v. CROATIA

• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 30306/13

  LEÓN MADRID c. ESPAGNE

  Eu égard au constat auquel la Cour est parvenue ci-dessus sous l'angle des articles 14 et 8 de la Convention, elle juge superflu de rechercher séparément si, en l'espèce, il y a également eu violation de l'article 1 du Protocole no 12 à la Convention (Guberina c. Croatie, no 23682/13, § 107, 22 mars 2016).