Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  J.D. AND A v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  No violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  J.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 1 other application

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

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  The second applicant submitted that by reducing her Housing Benefit allocation, the government had discriminated against her on the basis of her gender within the meaning of Thlimmenos v. Greece ([GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV), as she was the victim of domestic violence and victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women.

  The established case-law further underlines the following points (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, ECHR 2000-IV):.

  "... in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may, without an objective and reasonable justification, give rise to a breach of that Article (see Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV, and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  In line with the general principles relating to the prohibition of discrimination, this is only the case, however, if such policy or measure has no "objective and reasonable" justification (see, among other authorities, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 161, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, §§ 175 and 184-185).

  This is only the case, however, if such policy or measure has no "objective and reasonable" justification, that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality" between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 161, ECHR 2014).".

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  The Court should apply an appropriate, prior limit in such cases by applying the principles of direct/indirect discrimination (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV), or there must be a "significant difference" in treatment between the comparator groups.

  The Court has also accepted that a general policy or measure that has disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group, and that discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV, and Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 388, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  27996/06 and 34836/06, § 44, ECHR 2009).".
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 42949/98

  RUNKEE AND WHITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  However, this is not the only facet of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. 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 Thlimmenos, cited above, § 44; Runkee and White v. the United Kingdom, nos. 42949/98 and 53134/99, § 35, 10 May 2007; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 175; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 48420/10, 15 January 2013; and Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 288, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  The Court has further held that victims of gender based violence may be able to invoke the protection of Article 14 in conjunction with the relevant substantive provisions of the Convention (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009; Balsan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, 23 May 2017).
• EGMR, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97

  MAZUREK c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  For the purposes of Article 14, a difference of treatment based on a prohibited ground is discriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see Mazurek v. France, no. 34406/97, §§ 46 and 48, ECHR 2000-II).
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 49645/09

  BALSAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.10.2019 - 32949/17

  The Court has further held that victims of gender based violence may be able to invoke the protection of Article 14 in conjunction with the relevant substantive provisions of the Convention (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009; Balsan v. Romania, no. 49645/09, 23 May 2017).

• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11

  SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Si la correspondance d'une mesure avec le but poursuivi est effectivement une condition nécessaire à la proportionnalité de celle-ci (Rasmussen, précité, § 41, et J.D. et A c. Royaume-Uni, nos 32949/17 et 34614/17, §§ 99 et 104, 24 octobre 2019), la question qui se pose en l'espèce consiste à savoir si la différence de traitement litigieuse constitue une mesure excessive pour atteindre l'objectif déclaré.

  Si les États bénéficient en principe d'une ample latitude pour définir des mesures d'ordre général en matière économique ou sociale en raison de leur capacité à déterminer ce qui est d'utilité publique dans ce domaine et de leur connaissance directe de leur société et de ses besoins, ces mesures doivent néanmoins être mises en ?“uvre d'une manière non discriminatoire conforme à la Convention et satisfaire à l'exigence de la proportionnalité (voir J.D. et A c. Royaume-Uni, nos 32949/17 et 34614/17, § 88, 24 octobre 2019, Luczak, précité, § 52, et Fábián c. Hongrie [GC], no 78117/13, § 115, 5 septembre 2017, avec les références qui y figurent).

• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 59751/15

  G. L. gg. Italien

  Le principe de non-discrimination laisse un pouvoir discrétionnaire très large au juge (voir l'opinion dissidente des juges Pejchal et Wojtyczek jointe à l'arrêt J.D. et A c. Royaume-Uni, nos 32949/17 et 34614/17, 24 octobre 2019).
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 27094/20

  NURCAN BAYRAKTAR c. TÜRKIYE

  Celle-ci est très étroite lorsque la différence de traitement repose sur une caractéristique personnelle intrinsèque et immuable, telle que la race ou le sexe (voir, par exemple, D.H. et autres c. République tchèque [GC], no 57325/00, § 196, CEDH 2007-IV, et J.D. et A c. Royaume-Uni, nos 32949/17 et 34614/17, § 89, 24 octobre 2019).

 
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  NAPOTNIK v. ROMANIA

  The prohibition deriving from Article 14 will therefore also give rise to positive obligations for the Contracting States to make necessary distinctions between persons or groups whose circumstances are relevantly and significantly different (see J.D. and A. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, § 84, 24 October 2019 with further references, notably Thlimmenos, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 34591/19

  TOPLAK AND MRAK v. SLOVENIA

  However, the Court considers that this is not the only facet of the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14. 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 people whose situations are significantly different (see J.D. and A. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, § 84, 24 October 2019 with further references, notably Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 81114/17

  ÁDÁM AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The prohibition deriving from Article 14 will therefore also give rise to positive obligations for the Contracting States to make necessary distinctions between persons or groups whose circumstances are relevantly and significantly different (see J.D. and A. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, § 84, 24 October 2019 with further references, notably Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 46712/15

  BERKMAN v. RUSSIA

  32949/17 and 34614/17, § 84, 24 October 2019).
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 23077/19

  ARNAR HELGI LÁRUSSON v. ICELAND

  However, the Court reiterates that this is not the only facet of the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14. 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 people whose situations are significantly different (see J.D. and A. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, § 84, 24 October 2019, with further references, notably Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 18592/15

  YOCHEVA AND GANEVA v. BULGARIA

  Hence, in that context the Court has limited its acceptance to respect the legislature's policy choice as not "manifestly without reasonable foundation" to circumstances where an alleged difference in treatment resulted from a transitional measure forming part of a scheme carried out in order to correct an inequality (see J.D. and A v. the United Kingdom, nos. 32949/17 and 34614/17, § 88, 24 October 2019, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 32934/19

  SALTINYTE v. LITHUANIA

  32949/17 and 34614/17, § 88, 24 October 2019, and the cases cited therein).