Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,11073
EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,11073)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.05.2014 - 72964/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,11073)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Mai 2014 - 72964/10 (https://dejure.org/2014,11073)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,11073) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    RUMOR v. ITALY

    Art. 3, Art. 3+14, Art. 14 MRK
    No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3+14 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination Discrimination Sex) ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

  • EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

    Opuz ./. Türkei

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10
    A summary of the relevant international material concerning protection from domestic violence and discrimination against women has been made in the case of Opuz v. Turkey (no. 33401/02, §§ 72-86, ECHR 2009).

    The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 30, Series A no. 247-C; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 158, 9 June 2009; and Eremia v. The Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 48, 28 May 2013).

  • EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 72964/10
    The Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum is relative: it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 30, Series A no. 247-C; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 158, 9 June 2009; and Eremia v. The Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 48, 28 May 2013).
  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

    Sex ist auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig

    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, 02.03.2017 - 41237/14

    Italien muss Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt entschädigen

    Le droit international pertinent est décrit en partie dans l'affaire Opuz c. Turquie (no 33401/02, §§ 72-82, CEDH 2009) et en partie dans l'affaire Rumor c. Italie (no 72964/10, § 31-35, 27 mai 2014).

    This is the context and background for the decision of this Court, as recently as 27 May 2014, in Rumor v. Italy, no. 72964/10.

  • EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 646/10

    M.G. c. TURQUIE

    À cet égard, la Cour réitère que les obligations positives des États au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention comprennent, d'une part, l'élaboration d'un cadre juridique aux fins de prévenir et punir les mauvais traitements commis par des particuliers, et, d'autre part, lorsque les autorités sont informées d'un risque imminent de mauvais traitement ou lorsqu'un mauvais traitement est survenu, l'application en pratique de la législation pertinente aux fins d'offrir une protection aux victimes et punir les responsables de mauvais traitements (Eremia c. République de Moldova, no 3564/11, § 56, 28 mai 2013, et Rumor c. Italie, no 72964/10, § 63, 27 mai 2014).
  • EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 10929/19

    LANDI c. ITALIE

    Comme on le sait, l'arrêt Talpis avait été critiqué (notamment - dans leurs opinions séparées jointes au même arrêt - par les juges Eicke et Spano, respectivement dans les paragraphes 14-22 et 17-23 de ces opinions, en traduction) à la fois parce que « les éléments internationaux sur lesquels la majorité s'appu[yait] pour conclure à une violation de l'article 14 ne permett[ai]ent pas davantage de révéler un problème discriminatoire au sein du système'(voir spécifiquement l'opinion du juge Spano, précitée, paragraphe 22) et parce qu'il était difficile de justifier la naissance dans le pays d'un climat discriminatoire généralisé qui avait été exclu dans l'arrêt Rumor c. Italie (n° 72964/10, § 77) du 27 mai 2014, c'est-à-dire moins de trois ans auparavant (opinions précitées du juge Eicke, paragraphes 20-23, et du juge Spano, paragraphe 23).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht