Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08, 961/11   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2017,777
EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08, 961/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,777)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.01.2017 - 60367/08, 961/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,777)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Januar 2017 - 60367/08, 961/11 (https://dejure.org/2017,777)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,777) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty) (englisch)

  • 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 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté;Article 5-1 - Privation de liberté) (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] summary by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (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) (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security)

  • 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)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (11)

  • 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 life-sentence case (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, ECHR 2017).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

    FÁBIÁN v. HUNGARY

    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. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 85, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 177, ECHR 2007-IV).

  • 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).

  • EGMR, 19.12.2018 - 20452/14

    MOLLA SALI v. GREECE

    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, among many other authorities, Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 125, ECHR 2012; X and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, § 98, ECHR 2013; Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, 24 January 2017, and Fábián, cited above, § 113).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57101/10

    RIBAC v. SLOVENIA

    60367/08 and 961/11, § 58, ECHR 2017).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 66299/12

    DEACONU v. ROMANIA

    Accordingly, for Article 14 to become applicable, it suffices that the facts of the case fall "within the ambit" of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 53, ECHR 2017).
  • EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 14431/06

    ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA

    Accordingly, for Article 14 to become applicable, it suffices that the facts of the case fall "within the ambit" of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 53, ECHR 2017, with further references).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 62964/14

    MINTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    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 Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 64 24 January 2017).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 34952/07

    BEECKMAN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Pour que l'article 14 trouve à s'appliquer, il suffit donc que les faits du litige tombent «sous l'empire» de l'une au moins desdites clauses (parmi beaucoup d'autres, Stec et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], nos 65731/01 et 65900/01, § 39, CEDH 2005-X, et Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, § 53, 24 janvier 2017).
  • EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 36642/14

    M.A. v. HUNGARY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht