Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CARVALHO PINTO DE SOUSA MORAIS v. PORTUGAL

  Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CARVALHO PINTO DE SOUSA MORAIS v. PORTUGAL - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (5)

• rechtsanwalt-hembach.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Diskriminierung wegen des Alters und wegen des Geschlechts - Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais gegen Portugal

• lto.de (Kurzinformation)

  Diskriminierung in Portugal: Sex spielt auch für Frauen über 50 eine Rolle

• jurios.de (Kurzinformation)

  EGMR-Urteil: Sex auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig

• spiegel.de (Pressemeldung, 25.07.2017)

  Sex ist auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig

• institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais gegen Portugal

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CARVALHO PINTO DE SOUSA MORAIS v. PORTUGAL

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 17484/15

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  The Court further reiterates that the advancement of gender equality is today a major goal for the member States of the Council of Europe and very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference of treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Konstantin Markin, cited above, § 127, with further references; see also Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263).

  The question of gender discrimination in connection with judgments of the national courts was dealt by the Court in two important early precedents: Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland (24 June 1993, Series A no. 263) and Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal (no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX).

  In some cases, the Court found discrimination where a national court had used stereotypes in order to justify discriminatory treatment without being obliged to do so by law (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263: refusal to grant a woman an invalidity pension on the assumption that, as she had given birth to a child, she probably would have stopped working at any rate, as, according to the domestic judgment, women usually do; Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, ECHR 1999-IX: change of parental responsibility based on the father's homosexuality; Di Trizio v. Switzerland, no. 7186/09, 2 February 2016, where the Court criticised a judgment that had justified the refusal to grant a woman an invalidity pension at least partially by the so-called "sociological reality" that women often work less once they have given birth to a child).

• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

  Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  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, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  In earlier cases in the field of discrimination (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94; and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B) the Court found a violation of Article 14 but did not acknowledge stereotyping as part of the discriminatory conduct.

  In most cases, the Court has distinguished between two comparable abstract categories[27] of people treated in a different way by domestic legislation (see for example, among many other authorities, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, where a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (d) was found as only men, not women, were obliged to serve as firefighters or, alternatively, had to pay financial compensation; Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, where a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 was found, as domestic law allowed a woman to add her maiden name to that of her husband but a man could not add his name to that of his wife; Konstantin Markin, cited above, where Article 14 discrimination was found (also in conjunction with Article 8) as fathers, unlike mothers, were not entitled to take parental leave; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009, where the Court found a violation of Article 14 in combination with Articles 2 and 3 as the domestic legislation did not provide for the protection of women against domestic violence; and it is interesting to compare that case to Rumor v. Italy, no. 72964/10, 27 May 2014, where a woman had complained about domestic violence, but the Court did not find a violation of Article 14 combined with Article 3 as there was a legal framework in Italy enabling the authorities to take efficient measures against domestic violence and this framework had revealed itself to be efficient).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  In earlier cases in the field of discrimination (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94; and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B) the Court found a violation of Article 14 but did not acknowledge stereotyping as part of the discriminatory conduct.

  Moreover, Article 14 is not a self-standing provision as there is no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more Convention provisions (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94).

• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  The concept of private life also encompasses the right to "personal development" or the right to self-determination (ibidem) and elements such as gender identification, sexual orientation and sex life, which fall within the personal sphere protected by Article 8 (see E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, § 43, 22 January 2008).

  Here, the justification for the differential treatment by domestic law mainly flows from the use of stereotypes, concerning, for example, the mentally disabled (Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, 20 May 2010), people with a certain sexual orientation (E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, 22 January 2008), race (D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV) or gender (Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above: national legislation made it easier for a man settled in the United Kingdom than for a woman also settled to obtain permission for his or her non-national spouse to enter or remain in the country for settlement, so there was a straightforward and direct discrimination based on gender).

• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 25762/07

  SCHWIZGEBEL v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  In this regard, the Court has recognised that age might constitute "other status" for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts)), although it has not, to date, suggested that discrimination on grounds of age should be equated with other "suspect" grounds of discrimination (British Gurkha Welfare Society and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44818/11, § 88, 15 September 2016).

  For the present case, it is relevant that the Court has recognised that age may be covered by "other status" (see Schwitzgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010).

• EuGH, 11.11.1997 - C-409/95

  Marschall

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  For instance, the European Court of Justice held as follows in the Marschall case (ECJ, C-409/95, Hellmut Marschall v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, judgment of 11 November 1997, § 29):.
• EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 70434/12

  SOUSA GOUCHA v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a difference in treatment (see, inter alia, Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, §§ 90 and 93, ECHR 2016, and Sousa Goucha v. Portugal, no. 70434/12, § 58, 22 March 2016).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  In most cases, the Court has distinguished between two comparable abstract categories[27] of people treated in a different way by domestic legislation (see for example, among many other authorities, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, where a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (d) was found as only men, not women, were obliged to serve as firefighters or, alternatively, had to pay financial compensation; Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, where a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 was found, as domestic law allowed a woman to add her maiden name to that of her husband but a man could not add his name to that of his wife; Konstantin Markin, cited above, where Article 14 discrimination was found (also in conjunction with Article 8) as fathers, unlike mothers, were not entitled to take parental leave; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009, where the Court found a violation of Article 14 in combination with Articles 2 and 3 as the domestic legislation did not provide for the protection of women against domestic violence; and it is interesting to compare that case to Rumor v. Italy, no. 72964/10, 27 May 2014, where a woman had complained about domestic violence, but the Court did not find a violation of Article 14 combined with Article 3 as there was a legal framework in Italy enabling the authorities to take efficient measures against domestic violence and this framework had revealed itself to be efficient).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

  In that connection, the Court reiterates that as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, including the means used to ascertain the relevant facts (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 73, ECHR 2003-VIII, and Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 15.09.2016 - 44818/11

  BRITISH GURKHA WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10

  RUMOR v. ITALY
• EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

  BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

• LSG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 16.11.2018 - L 13 SB 280/17

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Herabsetzung eines Grades der Behinderung nach dem SGB IX

  Wegen der Bedeutung des Sexuallebens unabhängig vom Alter verweist er auf ein Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte vom 25.07.2017 (17484/15).
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 29762/10

  MITZINGER v. GERMANY

  Was die von der Regierung vorgenommene Ermittlung des von der Beschwerdeführerin erlittenen immateriellen Schadens anbelangt, ist der Gerichtshof ausgehend von seiner Praxis (…siehe z. B. Di Trizio./. Schweiz, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 7186/09, Rdnr. 121, 2. Februar 2016;… Biao./. Dänemark [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 38590/10, Rdnr. 147, ECHR 2016; und Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais./. Portugal, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 17484/15, Rdnr. 60, ECHR 2017) der Auffassung, dass Entschädigungen unter dieser Rubrik nach erfolgter Feststellung eines Verstoßes gegen Artikel 14 der Konvention i. V. m. Artikel 8 zugesprochen werden.
• EGMR, 23.04.2019 - 42447/10

  ELISEI-UZUN AND ANDONIE v. ROMANIA

  Accordingly, the complaint under Article 14 should have been examined and a violation found of that Article in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, based on, inter alia, the general principles concerning the protection against discrimination as they have been recently reiterated in Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal (no.17484/15, §§ 44-47, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 66299/12

  DEACONU v. ROMANIA

  However, only differences in treatment based on a personal characteristic (or "status") by which persons or groups of persons are distinguishable from each other are capable of triggering the application of Article 14 (see Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais v. Portugal, no. 17484/15, § 45, ECHR 2017).