Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINTOFF AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 14+13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  The Court reiterates that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

  Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14. It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that this distinction is discriminatory (see Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  The Court is of the view that this must have mitigated the effects of the delay in making the final payment (see, mutatis mutandis, Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 50, § 169) which, moreover, as found by the Constitutional Court was partly due to the applicants' irrelevant submissions.

 
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  The Court also points out that the grounds on which those differences of treatment are based are relevant in the context of Article 14. However, the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination as set out in Article 14 is not exhaustive (see Rasmussen v Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 34 in fine).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  In the light of the conclusions above and consequently the absence of an arguable claim under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, Article 13 is not engaged (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 03.11.2005 - 38244/03

  ABDILLA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  Nevertheless, in the exercise of its power of review the Court must determine whether the requisite balance was maintained in a manner consonant with the 'applicants' right of property (see Abdilla v. Malta (dec.), no 38244/03, 3 November 2005).
• EGMR, 23.09.1982 - 7151/75

  SPORRONG ET LÖNNROTH c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  The Court reiterates that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees, in substance, the right to property and comprises three distinct rules (see, for example, Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, judgment of 23 September 1982, Series A no. 52, p. 24, § 61).
• EGMR, 05.05.1995 - 18465/91

  AIR CANADA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 4566/07

  They must be construed in the light of the general principle laid down in the first rule (see, for example, Air Canada v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 May 1995, Series A no. 316-A, p. 15, §§ 29 and 30).