Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BERKVENS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

  KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  An applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 66-67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999-V; Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 121, 11 January 2007; and as a recent example, S.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 9909/10, § 18, 18 February 2014).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Burden, cited above, § 58; and Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  It is necessary but it is also sufficient for the facts of the case to fall "within the ambit" of one or more of the Convention Articles (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; Burden, cited above, § 58; and Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  "No objective and reasonable justification" means that the distinction in issue does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or that there is not a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, among many other authorities, Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, § 10, Series A no. 6; Marckx, cited above, § 33; James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 75, Series A no. 98; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 24, Series A no. 291-B; Stec and Others, cited above, § 51; Sejdic and Finci, cited above, § 42; Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 87, ECHR 2011; Ramaer and Van Willigen, cited above, § 91; and Fabris, cited above, § 56).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 9909/10

  S.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  An applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 66-67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999-V; Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 121, 11 January 2007; and as a recent example, S.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 9909/10, § 18, 18 February 2014).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  Since therefore the case clearly falls "within the ambit" of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, it follows that Article 14 is applicable in conjunction with that Article (see Darby v. Sweden, 23 October 1990, § 30, Series A no. 187; and Burden, cited above, § 59).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  An applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 66-67, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74-77, ECHR 1999-V; Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 121, 11 January 2007; and as a recent example, S.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 9909/10, § 18, 18 February 2014).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 46757/99

  GALEOTTI OTTIERI DELLA CIAJA AND SIX OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  In this connection it is worth noting that, for the purpose of applying the said treaty provisions, in the field of taxation the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment, and in the affirmative, whether an objective and reasonable justificiation exists nonetheless to make different provision for those cases (see, inter alia, Giuliana Galeotti Ottieri Della Ciaja and six others v. Italy (dec.), no. 46757/99, 22 June 1999, and Burden, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 18485/14

  It appears from the Explanatory Report to this Protocol (paragraph 18) that its drafters intended the meaning of the term discrimination used therein to be the same as that of the identical expression used in Article 14 (see Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 55, ECHR 2009).

• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 978/09

  H. AND J. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 121, 11 January 2007; and as recent examples, S.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 9909/10, § 18, 18 February 2014, and Berkvens v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 18485/14, § 21, 27 May 2014).