Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08, 961/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA
No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHAMTOKHU ET AKSENCHIK c. RUSSIE
Non-violation de l'article 14+5 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté;Article 5-1 - Privation de liberté);Non-violation de l'article 14+5 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 - ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- sputniknews.com (Pressemeldung, 24.01.2017)
Lebenslange Haft in Russland nur für Männer ist keine Diskriminierung
- juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)
Frauen dürfen in Russland von lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe ausgenommen werden
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia
[20.04.2016]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 60367/08
- EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 60367/08
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08, 961/11
Wird zitiert von ... (30) Neu Zitiert selbst (37)
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
65731/01 and 65900/01, § 40, ECHR 2005-X; and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 78, Series A no. 94).This could easily be justified in the light of the Court's case-law, which is based on the idea that "very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention" (see Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 39, in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 37, Reports 1998-II; and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI).
65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2005-X; and Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.
65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2006-VI.
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
KHOROSHENKO c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
This applies even more to situations in which a member State voluntarily guarantees a right which is not a Convention right itself, as any preference for extension of benefits should in principle fall within the competence of the domestic authorities, who are, as often emphasised by the Court, better placed than an international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 120, ECHR 2015).This is not to say that prison conditions for male lifers in Russia are acceptable from the viewpoint of the Convention (forceful criticism of these conditions has been expressed in the Khoroshenko judgment and the concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque and myself annexed to it (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04), nor that it is not desirable to abolish life sentences for male prisoners as well.
24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, 18 March 2014, and Khoroshenko v. Russia, [GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015.
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 130/10
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
The Court reiterates that matters of appropriate sentencing fall in principle outside the scope of the Convention, it not being its role to decide, for example, what is the appropriate term of detention applicable to a particular offence (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, § 105, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 117, 16 December 1999; and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 118, ECHR 1999-IX, and, by contrast, as regards a manifestly disproportionate punishment for ill-treatment, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007; Okkali v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 28, 31 May 2011).The right to human dignity has had an impact in that life imprisonment is now considered acceptable in Europe only under certain conditions (see Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, § 113, and Murray v. Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 101).
- EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90
BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
In that vein the Grand Chamber has emphasised more particularly "that the advancement of the equality of the sexes is today a major goal in the member States of the Council of Europe and that very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference in treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263).See, in particular, Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263.
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
In that vein the Grand Chamber has emphasised more particularly "that the advancement of the equality of the sexes is today a major goal in the member States of the Council of Europe and that very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference in treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263).See, in particular, Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263.
- EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
See Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31.See Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 42, Series A no. 31.
- EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 61498/08
AL-SAADOON ET MUFDHI CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
The territories encompassed by the member States of the Council of Europe have become a zone free of capital punishment and the Court has accepted that exposing an applicant to a real risk of being sentenced to death and executed elsewhere may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 102-104, Series A no. 161; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, §§ 115-18 and 140-43, ECHR 2010; and A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, §§ 63-66, 29 October 2015).See, for example, ECHR, Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, §§ 119 et seq., ECHR 2010.
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
The Court has on numerous occasions indicated that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today (see Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26; Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 70, ECHR 2001-VI; and Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.See Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26.
- EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 19010/07
X ET AUTRES CONTRE L'AUTRICHE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
On the one hand, the Court has repeatedly held that differences based on sex require particularly serious reasons by way of justification and that references to traditions, general assumptions or prevailing social attitudes in a particular country cannot, by themselves, be considered to amount to sufficient justification for a difference in treatment, any more than similar stereotypes based on race, origin, colour or sexual orientation (see Konstantin Markin, cited above, § 127; X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 99, ECHR 2013; Vallianatos and Others, cited above, § 77; and Hämäläinen v. Finland [GC], no. 37359/09, § 109, ECHR 2014).Where a difference in treatment is based on sex the State's margin of appreciation is narrow (see X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 99, ECHR 2013, and Vallianatos and Others, cited above, § 77).
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 25762/07
SCHWIZGEBEL v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
The Court notes that "sex" is explicitly mentioned in Article 14 as a prohibited ground of discrimination and that it has previously accepted that "age" is also a concept covered by this provision (see Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Nelson, cited above).See Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Solis v. Peru, Human Rights Committee (HRC), Communication No. 1016/2001, UN Doc.
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14
A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 46295/99
STAFFORD ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09
AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04
SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98
KRESS c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97
FRETTE v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
- EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24069/03
ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)
- EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02
CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
- EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95
Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
- EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00
SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
E.B. v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94
Mord an James Bulger
- EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94
Mord an James Bulger
- EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA
- EuGH, 05.03.2009 - C-388/07
DER GERICHTSHOF STELLT KLAR, UNTER WELCHEN VORAUSSETZUNGEN DIE MITGLIEDSTAATEN …
- EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99
OKKALI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94
GERGER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 21789/02
DERMAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15
Sex ist auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig
Accordingly, for Article 14 to become applicable, it is enough that the facts of the case fall "within the ambit" of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 53, 24 January 2017, and Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).The notion of discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 also 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 (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, ECHR 2017).
- EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09
"Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …
Fortunately, the Court has already supported the State's duty to protect the right to family and maternity of vulnerable female prisoners in a lifesentence case (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, ECHR 2017). - EGMR, 19.12.2018 - 20452/14
MOLLA SALI v. GREECE
60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, 24 January 2017, and Fábián, cited above, § 113).
- EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 78630/12
B. c. SUISSE
Il n'a pas d'existence indépendante, puisqu'il vaut uniquement pour « la jouissance des droits et libertés'qu'elles garantissent (voir, parmi d'autres, Sahin c. Allemagne [GC], no 30943/96, § 85, CEDH 2003-VIII, Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, § 53, 24 janvier 2017, et Fábián c. Hongrie [GC], no 78117/13, § 112, 5 septembre 2017). - EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13
FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE
In order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (see, amongst many authorities, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, ECHR 2017; X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 98, ECHR 2013; and Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 125, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).The burden of proof, as the Court has held on many occasions, is on the respondent Government, who have to demonstrate that the difference in treatment was justified (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 65, ECHR 2017; Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.
- EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
S.S. v. SLOVENIA
[1] For the general impact of the (non-)existence of a relevant consensus between Contracting States concerning a particular legal matter on use of the margin of appreciation doctrine, see, mutatis mutandis, the Grand Chamber's recent practice in: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, no. 60367/08 and 961/11, 24 January 2017, §§ 79, 85; Naït-Liman v. Switzerland, no. 41357/07, 15 March 2018, §§ 181-203; and Correia de Matos v. Portugal, no.56402/12, 4 April 2018, § 137. In the case of Bayatan v. Armenia (no. 23459/03, 7 July 2011, § 102), the Grand Chamber states that in defining the meaning of terms and notions in the text of the Convention, the Court can and must take into account elements of international law other than the Convention and the interpretation of such elements by competent organs.[8] Once this link between the Court's case-law on treating vulnerable categories with special attention and increased protection and the broad consensus under the CRPD on special and necessary measures or modifications for persons with disabilities is established, it is of secondary importance whether this can be legally defined as an aspect of "positive discrimination" towards disabled persons in the sense that 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, mutatis mutandis, Case relating to certain aspects of laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, 23 July 1968, Series A, No. 6, § 10; Thlimmenos v. Greece, no. 34369/97, 6 April 2000, § 44; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, 24 February 2002, § 82; Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, 17 February 2011, § 48; Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, no. 60367/08 and 961/11, [GC], 24 January 2017, §§ 64 and 82).
- OLG Brandenburg, 20.04.2021 - 1 AR 14/20
Erklärung der Auslieferung eines Verfolgten an die Russische Föderation zum …
Hierdurch ist den verfassungsrechtlichen Anforderungen ebenso wie denjenigen der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (vgl. hierzu EGMR, Urteil vom 24. Januar 2017, Fälle Nr. 60637/08 und 961/11, § 76 ) Genüge getan (…KG aaO.). - EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 23040/13
RYSER c. SUISSE
Il n'a pas d'existence indépendante, puisqu'il vaut uniquement pour « la jouissance des droits et libertés'qu'elles garantissent (voir, parmi d'autres, Sahin c. Allemagne [GC], no 30943/96, § 85, CEDH 2003-VIII, Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, § 53, 24 janvier 2017, et Fábián c. Hongrie [GC], no 78117/13, § 112, 5 septembre 2017). - EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 14925/18
COLOMBIER c. FRANCE
La Cour a également rappelé dans Fábián que pour qu'un problème se pose au regard de l'article 14, il doit y avoir une différence dans le traitement de personnes placées dans des situations analogues ou comparables (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, § 64, CEDH 2017). - EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 40792/10
FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
La Cour rappelle à cet égard que toute interprétation des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention doit se concilier avec son esprit général qui vise à sauvegarder et promouvoir les idéaux et valeurs d'une « société démocratique'(Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, série A no 161, Svinarenko et Slyadnev, précité, et Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, 24 janvier 2017). - EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22
KOVACEVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 40209/20
KOILOVA ET BABULKOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 3891/19
CÎNTA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19
P.C. v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16
ASSOCIATION ACCEPT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 56928/19
VALIULLINA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 31.10.2023 - 26104/19
STOTT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 30100/18
BARALIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 11643/20
ISPIRYAN v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 23077/19
ARNAR HELGI LÁRUSSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57101/10
RIBAC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 19839/21
L.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 11438/15
YAZBEK v. NORTH MACEDONIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 34952/07
BEECKMAN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 14431/06
ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 64531/16
KONOVALOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 68320/13
SPOLJAR AND DJECJI VRTIC PCELICE v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 66299/12
DEACONU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 36642/14
M.A. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 17670/21
ATHLETICS SOUTH AFRICA v. SWITZERLAND