Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARNER c. AUTRICHE
Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Rejet de la demande de radiation émanant du Gouvernement Violation de l'art. 14+8 Remboursement partiel frais et dépens (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARNER v. AUSTRIA
Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 36, Art. 36 Abs. 2, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Government's request to strike out refused Violation of Art. 14+8 Costs and expenses partial award (englisch) - Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte
(englisch)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 11.09.2001 - 40016/98
- EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98
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).
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04
SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA
Referring to Karner v. Austria, (no. 40016/98, § 37, ECHR 2003-IX), they argued that such a difference could only be justified by "particularly serious reasons". - EGMR, 06.04.2017 - 10138/11
Negative Religionsfreiheit: Konfessionslose dürfen an Kirchensteuer beteiligt …
Dieses Kriterium darf nicht starr, mechanisch und unflexibel angewendet werden (siehe Karner./. Österreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 40016/98, Rdnr. 25, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 19010/07
Fehlende Möglichkeit der Stiefkindadoption diskriminiert gleichgeschlechtliche …
Ce dernier membre de phrase - qui est omis de la citation faite au paragraphe 150 de l'arrêt - est visiblement inspiré de l'arrêt Karner c. Autriche (no 40016/98, en particulier §§ 34 et suivants, CEDH 2003-IX) et semble vouloir situer le paragraphe 23 de la recommandation précitée notamment dans le champ patrimonial - voire successoral - et non pas dans celui de l'adoption. - EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 25965/04
RANTSEV v. CYPRUS AND RUSSIA
Finally, the Court reiterates that its judgments serve not only to decide those cases brought before it 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, 18 January 1978, § 154, Series A no. 25; Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 86, Series A no. 39; and Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 26, ECHR 2003-IX). - EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 18766/11
Italien muß Rechtsrahmen für gleichgeschlechtliche Lebensgemeinschaft schaffen
Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions and to this extent it is autonomous there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, for instance, E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 47, 22 January 2008; Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 32, ECHR 2003-IX; and Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 22, Reports 1998-II).This was relevant for the purposes of the proportionality test in which "It must also be shown that it was necessary in order to achieve that aim to exclude ... persons living in a homosexual relationship ..." (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 41, ECHR 2003-IX) The Court found no evidence of necessity where there was a difference of treatment between unmarried differentsex couples and unmarried samesex couples.
- EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 29381/09
Homosexualität in Griechenland
Les tiers intervenants, le Centre AIRE, la CIJ, la FIDH et l'ILGA-Europe (paragraphe 6 ci-dessus), renvoient à la jurisprudence de la Cour, notamment à l'arrêt Karner c. Autriche (no 40016/98, CEDH 2003-IX) et à celle de juridictions constitutionnelles nationales, entre autres, la Cour constitutionnelle hongroise, la Cour suprême du Canada, la Chambre des lords du Royaume-Uni et la Cour constitutionnelle brésilienne. - EGMR, 16.07.2014 - 37359/09
HÄMÄLÄINEN c. FINLANDE
D'une part, la Cour a dit à maintes reprises que les différences fondées sur le sexe ou sur l'orientation sexuelle doivent être justifiées par des raisons particulièrement sérieuses (Smith et Grady c. Royaume-Uni, nos 33985/96 et 33986/96, § 90, CEDH 1999-VI, L. et V. c. Autriche, nos 39392/98 et 39829/98, § 45, CEDH 2003-I, Karner c. Autriche, no 40016/98, § 37, CEDH 2003-IX, Konstantin Markin c. Russie [GC], no 30078/06, § 127, CEDH 2012, X et autres c. Autriche [GC], no 19010/07, § 99, CEDH 2013, et Vallianatos et autres c. Grèce [GC], précité, § 77).Quant à la poursuite d'un but légitime, dans le contexte de sa jurisprudence concernant l'article 14 combiné avec l'article 8 de la Convention, la Cour a admis que les États avaient un intérêt légitime à protéger le mariage au sens traditionnel du terme en réservant légalement cette institution aux partenaires hétérosexuels, et que cet intérêt pouvait justifier une différence de traitement (Karner c. Autriche, no 40016/98, § 40, CEDH 2003-IX, Parry c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) no 42971/05, CEDH 2010, Schalk et Kopf c. Autriche, no 30141/04, §§ 61-62, CEDH 2010, et Vallianatos et autres, précité, §§ 83-85).
- EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 28475/12
RATZENBÖCK AND SEYDL v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 25951/07
Keine Diskriminierung, wenn einer Frau ein Adoptionsrecht in Bezug auf das Kind …
- EGMR, 17.12.2004 - 33348/96
CUMPANA AND MAZARE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 40792/10
FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.04.2008 - 13378/05
Burden und Burden ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
- EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02
P.B. AND J.S. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 23.01.2023 - 61435/19
Verstoß gegen Meinungsfreiheit: Geschichten über gleichgeschlechtliche …
- EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07
Alexejew ./. Russland
- EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 40756/06
VLAD AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 30.06.2016 - 51362/09
TADDEUCCI ET McCALL c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 31913/07
E.B. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 68453/13
PAJIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 44103/06
SABO v. SERBIA
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 67336/01
DANILENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 17056/06
Micallef ./. Malta
- EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35214/09
ALDEGUER TOMÁS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33917/12
DJOKABA LAMBI LONGA v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02
KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.10.2009 - 45653/99
ANDREOU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 14902/04
OAO NEFTYANAYA KOMPANIYA YUKOS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07
JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08
NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 3179/05
GAKIYEV AND GAKIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 13378/05
BURDEN ET BURDEN c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12
KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 71776/12
N.TS. AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 31864/06
COSIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 37346/05
FINGER v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02
GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 17671/02
RESSEGATTI c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 17.05.2005 - 74456/01
HORVATHOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 7144/15
A AND B v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 22254/14
ERMÉNYI v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 24.03.2016 - 51445/09
ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 26562/07
TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 13102/02
KOZAK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 16219/90
DEMADES v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 1253/04
BIRYUCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 22426/11
PRZEMYK v. POLAND
- EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 53862/07
GHUYUMCHYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 15028/04
BRUZTTIS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04
DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 02.02.2006 - 55955/00
BIÇ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 16.10.2003 - 76737/01
ANDREYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 43955/11
MAKSIMOVA AND KAPUSTIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 23944/04
EREMIÁSOVÁ AND PECHOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
- EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 57602/09
NASSAU VERZEKERING MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 37542/05
ABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 70829/01
GABAY v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 2809/18
KAGANOVSKYY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 76328/16
ANGHEL v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 67903/17
DYAKONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 10346/03
DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 33050/07
ISHMETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 7001/06
BABIY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50149/11
OLEG ZHURAVLEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 17596/12
BENKÖ AND SOÓSNÉ BENKÖ v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 31442/08
ZHELNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 29760/06
JANJIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 30385/07
SZERDAHELYI v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 18855/06
USTIMENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 36799/05
KORZHENEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.01.2011 - 29893/06
IBISH v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 9926/03
RF SPOL. S R.O. v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08
TEHRANI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 42439/02
SHEMILOVA AND SHEMILOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.09.2009 - 42194/05
TAMIR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 21466/03
DIMITROVSKA v.
- EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 903/05
LOPATYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 14818/02
STOJKOVIC v.
- EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 60790/00
LONNHOLTZ v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 30.08.2018 - 21431/06
TSAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 58316/14
ZOSIM v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 49725/12
KLIMENTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 31147/08
PETROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 36710/08
MAKSIMOVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 19556/09
KULINICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52061/14
POLOVYNKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 13817/09
KALASHNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.04.2016 - 75775/11
JÁMBOR v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 44387/10
POVARNITSINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 20647/08
INTERTRANS, ZAT v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 19482/10
MANEA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 41096/07
KAPITALNYY REMONT SVERDLOVYN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 61780/10
SCHMUTZ v. SWITZERLAND
- EGMR, 24.09.2013 - 13777/03
GRITSENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 9517/08
RODNISHCHEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17151/06
VOLOSNOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 6008/10
BATANOVIC v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 28856/06
PROKHORENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 24822/06
CHERNYY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 33093/04
PETRONIO v. SLOVENIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 54504/07
LOBANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 3743/05
PETERIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 28957/04
DRENSKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 28389/06
AGUILERA JIMÉNEZ AND OTHERS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 33264/03
YAKOVLEV v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 15091/06
BEZZINA WETTINGER AND OTHERS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 47826/99
DIREKCI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 14.09.2006 - 30651/05
KHOLODOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.09.2004 - 52367/99
MIHAILOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 9208/05
LACHOWSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 14284/08
TOMIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 07.12.2010 - 9643/04
OBERLÄNDER v. GERMANY
- EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 3009/07
KONASHEVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 64031/14
VEREMIYENKO AND KUTSMAY v. UKRAINE AND RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 38844/12
K.A.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM