Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SMITH AND GRADY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 10 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Partly inadmissible Partly admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96, 33986/96
• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 33985/96
• EGMR, 25.07.2000 - 33985/96

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96

  However, the case-law shows that the State must show "very weighty reasons" in order to establish justification for a difference in treatment (Abudulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 37-38, § 78 and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, § 34) and that a narrow margin of appreciation applies in considering whether sufficient justification has been provided.
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96

  In response, the applicants point out that it is sufficient if the victim is "humiliated in his own eyes" (Tyer v. United Kingdom judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, p. 16, § 32).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96

  However, the Government underline the wide margin of appreciation which is properly open to a State in this context (Leander v. Sweden judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 25, § 59) by reference to four matters.

 
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96

  However, the case-law shows that the State must show "very weighty reasons" in order to establish justification for a difference in treatment (Abudulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 37-38, § 78 and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, p. 32, § 34) and that a narrow margin of appreciation applies in considering whether sufficient justification has been provided.
• EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91

  Radikalenerlaß

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96

  The applicants submit that both their investigation and discharge from the armed forces constituted serious interferences with their private lives for which the armed forces have not offered any objective or "particularly serious reasons" by way of justification (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. p. 21, § 52 and Vogt v. Germany judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 323, pp. 22-23, §§ 42-44).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96

  In any event, they argue, referring to the Vilvarajah case, that judicial review does provide an effective remedy (Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 33985/96

  They also consider that there is no separate issue under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 (Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, pp. 25-26. §§ 64-70) or, in the alternative, that any difference in treatment is justified for the same reasons submitted in the context of Article 8 § 2.