Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
B. c. FRANCE
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Exception préliminaire rejetée (délai de six mois) Violation de l'Art. 8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 3 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Remboursement frais et dépens - ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
B. v. FRANCE
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) Preliminary objection rejected (six month period) Violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine Art. 3 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Costs and expenses award - domestic ...
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 13.02.1990 - 13343/87
- EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
Wird zitiert von ... (74) Neu Zitiert selbst (12)
- EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81
REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
This is the case especially where the positive obligations implicit in that concept are concerned, as in the instant case (see the Rees v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 14, para. 35, and the Cossey v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 184, p. 15, para. 36), and its requirements will vary considerably from case to case according to the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States.The Court had found, in connection with the English civil status system, that the purpose of the registers was not to define the present identity of an individual but to record a historic fact, and their public character would make the protection of private life illusory if it were possible to make subsequent corrections or additions of this kind (see the above-mentioned Rees judgment, Series A no. 106, pp. 17-18, para. 42).
Further, according to the Court's case-law as stated in the two previous judgments relating to transsexuals in the United Kingdom, the Rees v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 October 1986 (Series A no. 106) and the Cossey v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1990 (Series A no. 184) - the latter given in a case which was virtually identical to the present one -, the question of the amendment of the birth certificates of transsexuals who wish to have an indication of sex noted in the civil status register is a question for the national authorities and their legislative or judicial powers, who are best in a position to respond to the needs or hopes of each society and "the requirements of the situation pertaining there in determining what measures to adopt" (see the above-mentioned Rees judgment, p. 17, para. 42 (a)).
I am satisfied that the judgments of the Court in the case of Rees (Series A no. 106) and in the case of Cossey (Series A no. 184) respectively were correct in principle and that there is nothing in the present case to warrant a departure from them.
- EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 10843/84
COSSEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
This is the case especially where the positive obligations implicit in that concept are concerned, as in the instant case (see the Rees v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, p. 14, para. 35, and the Cossey v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1990, Series A no. 184, p. 15, para. 36), and its requirements will vary considerably from case to case according to the practices followed and the situations obtaining in the Contracting States.(b) As regards the legal aspects of the problem, Miss B. relied on the dissenting opinion of Judge Martens, annexed to the Cossey judgment (Series A no. 184, pp. 35-36, para. 5.5); the differences which still subsisted between the member States of the Council of Europe as to the attitude to be adopted towards transsexuals (ibid., p. 16, para. 40) were counterbalanced to an increasing extent by developments in the legislation and case-law of many of those States.
Further, according to the Court's case-law as stated in the two previous judgments relating to transsexuals in the United Kingdom, the Rees v. the United Kingdom judgment of 17 October 1986 (Series A no. 106) and the Cossey v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1990 (Series A no. 184) - the latter given in a case which was virtually identical to the present one -, the question of the amendment of the birth certificates of transsexuals who wish to have an indication of sex noted in the civil status register is a question for the national authorities and their legislative or judicial powers, who are best in a position to respond to the needs or hopes of each society and "the requirements of the situation pertaining there in determining what measures to adopt" (see the above-mentioned Rees judgment, p. 17, para. 42 (a)).
I am satisfied that the judgments of the Court in the case of Rees (Series A no. 106) and in the case of Cossey (Series A no. 184) respectively were correct in principle and that there is nothing in the present case to warrant a departure from them.
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
It was well aware that as from the De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971 (Series A no. 12, pp. 29-30, paras. 47-52) the Court had examined preliminary objections raised under Article 26 (art. 26) and had upheld them on occasion (Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, pp. 5-31).In this respect her position was different from that of Mr Van Oosterwijck (see the judgment cited above, Series A no. 40, pp. 16-17, paras. 33-34).
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
Indeed, the Court has already said (see the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 33-34, para. 67) that "although the essential object of Article 8 (art. 8) is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations". - EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
GUZZARDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
The Court finds, in agreement with the Commission, that the applicant complained in substance of a violation of her right to respect for her private life before the Libourne tribunal de grande instance and the Bordeaux Court of Appeal (see in particular, mutatis mutandis, the Guzzardi v. Italy judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, pp. 25-27, paras. 71-72). - EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
It is not the Court's function to indicate which is the most appropriate (see inter alia the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 25, para. 58, and the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 15, para. 26). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
It is not the Court's function to indicate which is the most appropriate (see inter alia the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 25, para. 58, and the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 15, para. 26). - EGMR, 06.12.1988 - 10588/83
BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
This conclusion, however, fell within the power to assess the evidence which belongs in principle to the national courts, according to the Court's constant case-law (see inter alia the Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 15, para. 33, and the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, para. 68). - EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9120/80
UNTERPERTINGER v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
This conclusion, however, fell within the power to assess the evidence which belongs in principle to the national courts, according to the Court's constant case-law (see inter alia the Unterpertinger v. Austria judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 110, p. 15, para. 33, and the Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain judgment of 6 December 1988, Series A no. 146, p. 31, para. 68). - EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84
BROZICEK v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87
It noted, however, that several judges had given dissenting opinions on this point, both at the time (aforesaid judgment of 18 June 1971, pp. 49-58) and in cases since (Brozicek v. Italy judgment of 19 December 1989, Series A no. 167, pp. 23-28, and Cardot v. France judgment of 19 May 1991, Series A no. 200, pp. 23-24). - EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85
KRUSLIN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
CARDOT c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
Elements such as, for example, gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life fall within the personal sphere protected by Article 8 (see e.g. the B. v. France judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, § 63; the Burghartz v. Switzerland judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, § 24; the Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom judgment of 22 October 1991, Series A no. 45, § 41, and the Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom judgment of 19 February 1997, Reports 1997-1, § 36). - EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 31322/07
HAAS c. SUISSE
Des éléments tels que, par exemple, le nom, l'identification sexuelle, l'orientation sexuelle et la vie sexuelle relèvent de la sphère personnelle protégée par l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, B. c. France, 25 mars 1992, § 63, série A no 232-C, Burghartz c. Suisse, 22 février 1994, § 24, série A no 280-B, Dudgeon c. Royaume-Uni, 22 octobre 1981, § 41, série A no 45, et Laskey, Jaggard et Brown c. Royaume-Uni, 19 février 1997, § 36, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-I). - EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95
Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
Le Gouvernement admet qu'il peut y avoir des cas particuliers où le refus de reconnaître juridiquement la nouvelle identité sexuelle d'une personne transsexuelle peut s'analyser en une violation de l'article 8, en particulier lorsqu'il en résulte concrètement et réellement un préjudice et une humiliation pour l'intéressée au quotidien (arrêt B. c. France du 25 mars 1992, série A no 232-C, pp. 52-54, §§ 59-63).
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
18-19, § 41; B. v. France, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, pp. - BVerfG, 18.07.2006 - 1 BvL 1/04
Transsexuelle IV
b) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat entschieden, Art. 8 EMRK gebiete die Anerkennung der Geschlechtsumwandlung eines Transsexuellen (Urteil vom 25. März 1992 - 13343/87 - [B % Frankreich]). - EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 35968/97
Rechtssache V. K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Diese Auffassung wurde anschließend in der Rechtssache B. ./. Frankreich bestätigt, in der er bemerkte, dass weiterhin Ungewissheit im Hinblick auf das eigentliche Wesen der Transsexualität bestehe und die Berechtigung chirurgischer Eingriffe in solchen Fällen bisweilen in Frage gestellt werde (Urteil vom 25. März 1992, Serie A, Band 232-C, S. 49, Nr. 48; siehe auch Sheffield und Horsham ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Urteil vom 30. Juli 1998, Reports 1998-V, S. 2028, Nr. 56). - EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98
P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
La Cour a déjà déclaré que des facteurs tels que l'identification sexuelle, le nom, l'orientation sexuelle et la vie sexuelle sont des éléments importants de la sphère personnelle protégée par l'article 8 (voir, par exemple, arrêts B. c. France, 25 mars 1992, série A no 232-C, pp. 53-54, § 63 ; Burghartz c. Suisse, 22 février 1994, série A no 280-B, p. 28, § 24 ; Dudgeon c. Royaume-Uni, 22 octobre 1981, série A no 45, pp. 18-19, § 41 ; et Laskey, Jaggard et Brown c. Royaume-Uni, 19 février 1997, Recueil 1997-I, p. 131, § 36). - EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 25579/05
A, B und C ./. Irland
Certains de ces éléments concernent le requérant, par exemple l'importance de l'intérêt en jeu ou la mise en cause de valeurs fondamentales et d'aspects essentiels de sa vie privée (X et Y c. Pays-Bas, précité, § 27 ; et Gaskin, précité, § 49), ainsi que l'impact sur l'intéressé d'un conflit entre la réalité sociale et le droit, la cohérence des pratiques administratives et juridiques dans l'ordre interne revêtant une grande importance pour l'appréciation à effectuer sous l'angle de l'article 8 (B. c. France, 25 mars 1992, § 63, série A no 232-C ; et Christine Goodwin, précité, §§ 77-78). - EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98
BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI
The Court has already held that elements such as gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article 8 (see, for example, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45, pp. 18-19, § 41; B. v. France, judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, pp. 53-54, § 63; Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 28, § 24; and Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 19 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, p. 131, § 36). - EGMR, 16.07.2014 - 37359/09
HÄMÄLÄINEN c. FINLANDE
Certains de ces éléments concernent le requérant, par exemple l'importance de l'intérêt en jeu ou la mise en cause de « valeurs fondamentales'ou d"« aspects essentiels'de sa vie privée (X et Y c. Pays-Bas, précité, § 27, et Gaskin, précité, § 49), ainsi que l'impact sur l'intéressé d'un conflit entre la réalité sociale et le droit, la cohérence des pratiques administratives et juridiques dans l'ordre interne revêtant une grande importance pour l'appréciation à effectuer sous l'angle de l'article 8 (B. c. France, 25 mars 1992, § 63, série A no 232-C, et Christine Goodwin, précité, §§ 77-78). - EGMR, 22.04.1997 - 21830/93
X, Y AND Z v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85
CASTELLS v. SPAIN
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 25680/94
I. c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 53254/20
U c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.10.2018 - 55216/08
Italien verurteilt: Warten auf den neuen Namen
- EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87
DROZD ET JANOUSEK c. FRANCE ET ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 29002/06
SCHLUMPF c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14793/08
Transsexualität: Recht auf Geschlechtsumwandlung gestärkt
- EGMR, 25.11.1994 - 18131/91
STJERNA c. FINLANDE
- EGMR, 17.02.2005 - 42758/98
K.A. ET A.D. c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 2145/16
X ET Y c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.03.2022 - 29775/18
C.E. u.a. ./. Frankreich - Rechtliche Beziehung zwischen einem Kind und dem …
- EGMR, 30.07.1998 - 22985/93
SHEFFIELD ET HORSHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 23.11.1993 - 14838/89
A. v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 38621/97
ZEHNALOVÁ ET ZEHNAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.12.1995 - C-13/94
P gegen S und Cornwall County Council. - Gleichbehandlung von Männern und Frauen …
- EKMR, 01.12.1997 - 28957/95
GOODWIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 84536/17
GRANER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 200/15
P.R. v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 15.11.1996 - 18877/91
AHMET SADIK c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 9718/03
GEORGEL AND GEORGETA STOICESCU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 23.05.2006 - 32570/03
GRANT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 31524/96
BELVEDERE ALBERGHIERA S.R.L. c. ITALIE
- EKMR, 06.04.1994 - 22920/93
M.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 34050/05
HAGUENAUER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 35522/04
VASSILIOS STAVROPOULOS c. GRECE
- EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 27868/95
SALONEN v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 21.11.1995 - 18072/91
VELOSA BARRETO c. PORTUGAL
- EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 34588/07
DARRAJ c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 30782/16
SIMONOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 45964/99
KAROV c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 25894/94
BAHADDAR c. PAYS-BAS
- EKMR, 24.06.1996 - 29526/95
STRESEMANN v. GERMANY
- EKMR, 19.01.1996 - 22985/93
SHEFFIELD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 11.05.2010 - 29784/06
FLEURY c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 37110/97
BERTUCCELLI contre l'ITALIE
- EKMR, 02.09.1996 - 26667/95
O'HARA v. IRELAND
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 19200/91
KINSELLA AND MULVANEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 19785/92
McCOMBE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20482/92
VELLA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 21596/93
DOWD AND McKENNA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 19786/92
HOLMES, McGEOUGH AND HOLMES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 09.12.1992 - 18632/91
McCOTTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 10.02.2004 - 53760/00
B.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 12.10.1994 - 19760/92
KETONEN v. FINLAND
- EKMR, 02.09.1994 - 19762/92
ASPLUND v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 19.05.1994 - 23159/94
DRESHAJ c. FINLANDE
- EKMR, 19.05.1994 - 23634/94
TANKO v. FINLAND
- EKMR, 14.04.1994 - 23761/94
KÜLEN v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 10.03.1994 - 22806/93
A. AND FAMILY v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 10.03.1994 - 23253/94
L.A. v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 29.11.1993 - 21056/92
CASSEG?RD v. SWEDEN
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20483/92
ARMSTRONG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20484/92
McLAUGHLIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20480/92
McDONNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20478/92
ANDERSON, DUFFY AND ANDERSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20481/92
NORNEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20479/92
McCOTTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20487/92
O'DWYER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 20486/92
GIBSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 09.12.1992 - 19085/91
P.K., M.K. AND B.K. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 19.01.1996 - 23390/94
HORSHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EKMR, 01.09.1993 - 18806/91
K.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS