Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AZIZ c. CHYPRE

  Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de P1-3 Violation de l'art. 14+P1-3 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AZIZ v. CYPRUS

  Art. 14+P1 Abs. 3, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of P1-3 Violation of Art. 14+P1-3 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.04.2002 - 69949/01
• EGMR, 08.04.2003 - 69949/01
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention has been relied on, both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14, and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 26, § 67, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  The Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with: it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 52; and more recently, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV; and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  The Contracting States have a wide margin of appreciation in this sphere, but it is for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with: it has to satisfy itself that the conditions do not curtail the rights in question to such an extent as to impair their very essence and deprive them of their effectiveness; that they are imposed in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and that the means employed are not disproportionate (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 52; and more recently, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV; and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 39, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  MATHIEU-MOHIN ET CLERFAYT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  Finally, the applicant maintained that his case was clearly distinguishable from that of Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  According to the Court's case-law, a difference of treatment is discriminatory, for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention, if it "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 Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 35-36, § 72).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 69949/01

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention has been relied on, both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14, and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, p. 26, § 67, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  They further submitted that this impossibility of justification was particularly important in a case concerning the right to stand for election (they referred to Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 28, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 14305/17

  Menschenrechtsgerichtshof fordert Freilassung von Selahattin Demirtas

  The mere fact that a restriction of a Convention right or freedom does not meet all the requirements of the clause that permits it does not necessarily raise an issue under Article 18. Separate examination of a complaint under that Article is only warranted if the claim that a restriction has been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  The mere fact that a restriction of a Convention right or freedom does not meet all the requirements of the clause that permits it does not necessarily raise an issue under Article 18. Separate examination of a complaint under that Article is only warranted if the claim that a restriction has been applied for a purpose not prescribed by the Convention appears to be a fundamental aspect of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE

  [80] Usually, the Court associates the violation of the essence of the Convention right with a total deprivation of the possibility of exercising it, i.e., its destruction (Heaney and McGuinness, cited above, § 55; Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, § 44, ECHR 2002-IX: Appleby and Others, cited above, § 47; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, §§ 29 and 30, 22 June 2004; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 101, ECHR 2006-IX; Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 260, ECHR 2012; R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 65; Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc., cited above, § 129; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 155, 8 November 2016; Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 99; and Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, § 717, 31 May 2018).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 9103/04

  "Partei Labour Georgien" ./. Georgien

  The Court reiterates that, under its case-law, the notion of "individual rights" (see Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 25, ECHR 2004-V, and Ždanoka v. Latvia [GC], no. 58278/00, § 102, ECHR 2006-...) or "subjective rights" (see Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 54, ECHR 2004-X) to stand for election under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have mostly been confined to physical persons.
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 78039/01

  GROSARU c. ROUMANIE

  Furthermore, they referred to the Court's case-law concerning Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, according to which the Court does not award amounts in respect of pecuniary damage in this domain (see Podkolzina, cited above, § 49; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 43, ECHR 2004-V; Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 75, ECHR 2004-X; and Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 94, ECHR 2005-IX).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 55066/00

  RUSSIAN CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF ENTREPRENEURS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in cases where the voting ban was not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Vito Sante Santoro v. Italy, no. 36681/97, ECHR 2004-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV; and Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, ECHR 2005-IX) or where the applicants belonged to a disenfranchised cluster of the population (see Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I, and Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 17599/07

  KIRIL IVANOV v. BULGARIA

  In general, the Court examines complaints under Article 14 in addition to those under the substantive Article in conjunction with which it is being relied on only if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case and a separate examination is necessary (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 32, Series A no. 91; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 29496/16

  THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 3)

  In general, the Court examines complaints under Article 14 in addition to those under the substantive Article in conjunction with which it is being relied on only if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case and a separate examination is necessary (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 32, Series A no. 91; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 11.01.2018 - 70502/13

  YORDAN IVANOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  In general, the Court examines complaints under Article 14 in addition to those under the substantive Article in conjunction with which it is being relied on only if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case and a separate examination is necessary (see, among other authorities, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 30, Series A no. 32; Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 32, Series A no. 91; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, § 35, ECHR 2004-V; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 13716/02

  SUKHOVETSKYY v. UKRAINE