Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAH c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 14+8 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8 MRK
  No violation of Art. 14+8 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Art. 14+8

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bah v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07

  Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07

  The Court has also established in its case-law that only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or "status", are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 (Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23).
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07

  Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature's policy choice unless it is "manifestly without reasonable foundation" (Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom, [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006).
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07

  The scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background (see Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, 16 March 2010).
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07

  On the other hand, a wide margin is usually allowed to the Contracting State under the Convention when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy (see, for example, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 46, Series A no. 98, and National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports 1997-VII).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.10.2015 - C-443/14

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Pedro Cruz Villalón stellt eine Auflage für …

  47 - Vgl. Urteil des EGMR Ponomaryovi/Bulgarien vom 21. Juni 2011, Nr. 5335/05, und insbesondere Urteil Bah/Vereinigtes Königreich vom 27. September 2011, Nr. 56328/07.
• EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 17120/09

  DHAHBI c. ITALIE

  The applicant added that the discrimination to which he had been subjected had been based on his nationality and not on his immigration status as conferred by law (he cited, conversely, Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 552/10

  I.B. c. GRÈCE

  Se référant à l'arrêt Bah c. Royaume-Uni (no 56328/07, CEDH 2011), le requérant soutient que les États doivent avancer des motifs très solides pour justifier une différence de traitement fondée sur des conditions médicales, telles que la séropositivité.

 
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13

  FÁBIÁN c. HONGRIE

  The Court has found "other status", inter alia, where the impugned distinction was based on military rank (Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22); the type of outline planning permission held by the applicant (Pine Valley Developments Ltd and Others v. Ireland, 29 November 1991, Series A no. 222); whether the applicant's landlord was the State or a private owner (Larkos v. Cyprus [GC], no. 29515/95, ECHR 1999-I); the kind of paternity the applicant enjoyed (Paulík v. Slovakia, no. 10699/05, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts)); the type of sentence imposed on a prisoner (Clift v. the United Kingdom, no. 7205/07, 13 July 2010); the nationality or immigration status of the applicant's son (Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, ECHR 2011); or ownership of large or small parcels of land (Chassagnou, cited above).
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10

  BIAO v. DENMARK

  The Court accepts that in this respect the applicants enjoyed "other status" for the purpose of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 46-48; Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 19839/21

  L.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In this regard, Lord Sales referred to Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05 ECHR 2010 and Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, ECHR 2011.

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X), where a Contracting State decides to provide such benefits, it must do so in a way that is compliant with Article 14. The arrangement between LBH and AIHA in this case impacted upon the eligibility of the applicant and her family for assistance in finding suitable accommodation (see, for example, Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, § 40, ECHR 2011).

• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11

  SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Mais la question qui se pose à la Cour ne consiste pas à savoir si l'État défendeur a attribué équitablement des ressources limitées entre différentes catégories de demandeurs (comparer avec Bah c. Royaume-Uni, no 56328/07, §§ 48-50, CEDH 2011) pour garantir à tous une retraite décente.
• EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 27094/20

  NURCAN BAYRAKTAR c. TÜRKIYE

  D'abord et avant tout, la nature de la situation sur laquelle repose la différence de traitement pèse lourdement dans l'évaluation de l'étendue de cette marge (Bah c. Royaume-Uni, no 56328/07, § 47, CEDH 2011).
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 22105/18

  M.T. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  In some cases, the Court has recognised that "immigration status" may amount to "other status" within the meaning of Article 14 (see, for example, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, no. 22341/09, §§ 46-48, 6 November 2012; Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 38-52, ECHR 2011; and Okpisz v. Germany, no. 59140/00, §§ 32-34, 25 October 2005).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 47335/06

  REDFEARN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In addition, the Court has indicated that differences of treatment which are based on immutable characteristics will as a general rule require weightier reasons in justification than differences of treatment based on a characteristic or status which contains an element of choice (Bah v the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 32934/19

  SALTINYTE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 11944/16

  MILIVOJEVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 11809/12

  STRAKA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA