Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione temporis;Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA and 1 other application

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  It is for this reason that the authorities must use all available means to combat racism, thereby reinforcing democracy's vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of enrichment (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  On this point the Court reiterates that it has previously held that when it considers the object and purpose of the Convention provisions, it also takes into account the international-law background to the legal question before it; the common international or domestic legal standards of European States reflect a reality that the Court cannot disregard when it is called upon to clarify the scope of a Convention provision that more conventional means of interpretation have not enabled it to establish with a sufficient degree of certainty (see, mutatis mutandis, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 184, 9 June 2009).
• EGMR, 03.10.2019 - 55225/14

  Udo Pastörs: Holocaust-Leugnung ist in Europa kein Menschenrecht

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  A summary of this case-law may be found in the cases of Perinçek (cited above, §§ 200-225) and Pastörs v. Germany (no. 55225/14, § 36-38, 3 October 2019).

 
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  In this context, contrary to the majority's view, I consider that the Court's findings in Janowiec and Others v. Russia ([GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, ECHR 2013) are not relevant to the case at hand.
• EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17

  MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  The authorities' responsibilities under Article 14 to secure respect without discrimination for a fundamental value may also come into play when possible racist attitudes resulting in the stigmatisation of the person concerned are at issue in the context of Article 8. It is even more so when the said attitudes are displayed not by private individuals but by State agents (see Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, § 67, 18 October 2022).
• EGMR, 23.03.2017 - 53251/13

  A.-M.V. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  While it is for the national authorities to make the initial assessment of necessity, the final evaluation of whether the reasons cited for the interference are relevant and sufficient remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention (see, among other authorities, A.-M.V. v. Finland, no. 53251/13, § 81, 23 March 2017).
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 28883/95

  McKERR CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  The Court has also accepted in previous cases that a difference in treatment may take the form of disproportionately prejudicial effects of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, discriminates against a group (see, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  The assessment of whether or not a private-life issue under Article 8 of the Convention is raised in such a case is a point that comes under the Court's jurisdiction ratione materiae and falls to be examined as an admissibility issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 92-93, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  BEIZARAS AND LEVICKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  This approach has been applied in cases raising very different issues where the Court has found that, for Article 8 to come into play, either (i) there must be convincing evidence that an alleged failure on the part of the State (for example, to provide members of Roma minority with access to safe drinking water - see Hudorovic and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14, §§ 115 and 157, 10 March 2020) effectively eroded the applicants' core rights under that provision, or (ii) the attack on a person must attain a certain level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for one's private life (for example, in a case concerning homophobic statements - see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 109, 14 January 2020).
• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 24816/14

  HUDOROVIC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16

  This approach has been applied in cases raising very different issues where the Court has found that, for Article 8 to come into play, either (i) there must be convincing evidence that an alleged failure on the part of the State (for example, to provide members of Roma minority with access to safe drinking water - see Hudorovic and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14, §§ 115 and 157, 10 March 2020) effectively eroded the applicants' core rights under that provision, or (ii) the attack on a person must attain a certain level of seriousness and be made in a manner causing prejudice to the personal enjoyment of the right to respect for one's private life (for example, in a case concerning homophobic statements - see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 109, 14 January 2020).
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 5380/07

  KARSAI c. HONGRIE
• EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 29335/13

  BEHAR AND GUTMAN v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2022 - 17808/19

  PAKETOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 27753/06

  L.Z. v. SLOVAKIA