Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2003,24230
EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,24230)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.07.2003 - 40016/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,24230)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Juli 2003 - 40016/98 (https://dejure.org/2003,24230)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2003,24230) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (118)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

    GUZZARDI v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    The Court has repeatedly stated that its "judgments in fact serve not only to decide those cases brought before the Court but, more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting Parties" (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, p. 62, § 154, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 31, § 86).

    In taking up the wording of earlier judgments in a different context, the majority suggest that it suffices if the continuation of the examination would "contribute to elucidate, safeguard and develop the standards of protection under the Convention" (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 62, § 154, and Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, p. 31, § 86).

  • EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

    DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    The Court notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant's heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp.
  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    Thus, in contrast to the position under Article 33 - where, subject to the other conditions laid down, the general interest attaching to the observance of the Convention renders admissible an inter-State application - Article 34 requires that an individual applicant should claim to have been actually affected by the violation he alleges (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 90-91, §§ 239-40, and Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, pp. 17-18, § 33).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

    BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    Furthermore, 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 Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 29, § 27; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, pp.
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 12954/87

    RAIMONDO v. ITALY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    19-20, §§ 37-38; X v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 15, § 32; Vocaturo v. Italy, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 29, § 2; G. v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 228-F, p. 65, § 2; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 231-B, p. 16, § 2; X v. France, judgment of 31 March 1992, Series A no. 234-C, p. 89, § 26; and Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 8, § 2).
  • EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

    KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    Furthermore, 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 Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 29, § 27; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, pp.
  • EKMR, 02.07.1996 - 21444/93

    ÖHLINGER v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    On the other hand, it has been the Court's practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no 287, pp. 14-15, § 31; Öhlinger v. Austria, no. 21444/93, Commission's report of 14 January 1997, § 15, unreported; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII).
  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99

    SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    Article 34 does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention; it does not permit individuals to complain against a law in abstracto simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention (see Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15-16, § 31, and Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 56501/00

    MATA ESTEVEZ v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    The Court can accept that protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment (see Mata Estevez v. Spain (dec.), no. 56501/00, ECHR 2001-VI, with further references).
  • EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

    NORRIS c. IRLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
    Article 34 does not institute for individuals a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention; it does not permit individuals to complain against a law in abstracto simply because they feel that it contravenes the Convention (see Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, pp. 15-16, § 31, and Sanles Sanles v. Spain (dec.), no. 48335/99, ECHR 2000-XI).
  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 31.03.1992 - 18020/91

    X c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96

    SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL

  • EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

    LARKOS c. CHYPRE

  • EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

    FRETTE v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 45330/99

    S.L. v. AUSTRIA

  • EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

    Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein

    Der Gerichtshof bejahte ein solches allgemeines Interesse insbesondere in Fällen, in denen die aufgeworfene Hauptfrage über die verstorbene Person und die Interessen des Beschwerdeführers hinausging (siehe Karner./. Österreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 40016/98, Rdnr. 25, ECHR 2003-IX; Fairfield und andere./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24790/04, ECHR 2005-VI, und Ressegatti./. die Schweiz, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17671/02, Rdnr. 26, 13.
  • EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 64569/09

    Betreiber haftet für Nutzerkommentare

    « [L]es arrêts [de la Cour] servent non seulement à trancher les cas dont elle est saisie, mais plus largement à clarifier, sauvegarder et développer les normes de la Convention et à contribuer de la sorte au respect, par les États, des engagements qu'ils ont pris en leur qualité de Parties contractantes (Irlande c. Royaume-Uni, 18 janvier 1978, § 154, série A no 25, Guzzardi c. Italie, 6 novembre 1980, § 86, série A no 39, et Karner c. Autriche, no 40016/98, § 26, CEDH 2003-IX).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 48420/10

    Eweida u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich - Religionsfreiheit am Arbeitsplatz

    La Cour rappelle avoir jugé dans sa jurisprudence relative à l'article 14 que seules des considérations très fortes peuvent l'amener à estimer compatible avec la Convention une différence de traitement fondée exclusivement sur l'orientation sexuelle (voir, par exemple, Karner c. Autriche, no 40016/98, § 37, CEDH 2003-IX, Smith et Grady, précité, § 90, et Schalk et Kopf c. Autriche, no 30141/04, § 97, CEDH 2010).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht