Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GINEITIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 14+8 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 03.10.2000 - 28369/95

  CAMP ET BOURIMI c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 20739/05

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, no. 28369/95, § 34, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 20739/05

  What matters for the Court is whether the reasons purporting to justify the actual measures adopted with regard to the applicant's enjoyment of her right to respect for family life were relevant and sufficient under Article 8 (see Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 65, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  HOFFMANN c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 20739/05

  On the contrary, the Lithuanian courts made an explicit distinction between the applicant's situation and that in the case of Hoffmann v. Austria (23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58).

• EGMR, 14.02.2023 - 10477/21

  BYCENKO v. LITHUANIA

  The same principle was enshrined in international law (see paragraph 75 below) and in the case-law of the Court (the Vilnius Regional Court referred to Hokkanen v. Finland, no. 19823/92, § 61, 23 September 1994; Gineitiene v. Lithuania, no. 20739/05, § 38, 27 July 2010; and G.B. v. Lithuania, no. 36137/13, § 105, 19 January 2016).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 28129/05

  COSAC c. ROUMANIE

  S'agissant du grief tiré de l'article 8 combiné avec l'article 14 de la Convention, la Cour considère qu'en tout état de cause l'appartenance du requérant à une secte religieuse n'a pas été le seul argument à l'appui du rejet de l'action en question et n'en a pas été non plus l'élément décisif (voir, mutatis mutandis, Gineitiene c. Lituanie, no 20739/05, § 40, 27 juillet 2010, Ismaïlova c. Russie, no 37614/02, § 55, 29 novembre 2007, Deschomets, précitée, et, a contrario, Palau-Martinez, précité, § 37).