Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 14+P1-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  [DEU] Violation of Art. 14+P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• ferner-alsdorf.de (Kurzinformation)

  EGMR stärkt Rechte Homosexueller in Großbritannien

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 37060/06
• EGMR - 37060/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2005-X. A narrow approach would have left the applicant in Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV without redress.

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-X; Carson and Others [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010- ).

• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 42184/05

  CARSON ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 39, ECHR 2005-X; Carson and Others [GC], no. 42184/05, § 63, ECHR 2010- ).

  There is a margin of appreciation for States in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment, and this margin is usually wide when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy (see most recently Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, 16 March 2010).

• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  55480/00 and 59330/00, ECHR 2004-VIII; Rainys and Gasparavicius v. Lithuania, nos.

 
• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  This was affirmed by the judgment in E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, ECHR 2008-..., in which the Court had not indicated whether it treated the situation as coming within the ambit of that applicant's private or family life; the applicant submitted that the circumstances in that case clearly related to both.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  The applicant referred to the Court's judgment in Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, ECHR 2000-IV as authority for the proposition that a difference of treatment that would not generally come within the scope of Article 14 may do so depending on the ground of discrimination alleged.
• EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00

  Andrejeva ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  It applies also to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Article of the Convention, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide (Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, § 74, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 06.02.1976 - 5589/72

  SCHMIDT ET DAHLSTRÖM c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  The Court has also explained that Article 14 comes into play whenever "the subject-matter of the disadvantage... constitutes one of the modalities of the exercise of a right guaranteed" (see the National Union of Belgian Police v. Belgium judgment of 27 October 1975, Series A no. 19, p. 20, § 45), or the measure complained of is "linked to the exercise of a right guaranteed" (see the Schmidt and Dahlström v. Sweden judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 21, p. 17, § 39).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 11581/85

  DARBY v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  While no issue of taxation arises here, the Court considers that the sums which the applicant paid out of her own financial resources towards the upkeep of her children are to be considered as "contributions" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 1, payment of which was required by the relevant legislative provisions and enforced through the medium of the CSA (see, mutatis mutandis, Darby v. Sweden, 23 October 1990, § 30, Series A no. 187, and Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, §§ 34-35, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 56501/00

  MATA ESTEVEZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 37060/06

  Lord Justice Sedley considered that the applicant's previous family life (i.e. the relationship between herself, her former husband and her children) was not within the ambit of Article 8. As for her relationship with her partner, he read the decision of the European Court in Mata Estevez v. Spain (dec.), no. 56501/00, ECHR 2001-VI as establishing that the question whether same-sex relationships fall within Article 8 is a matter of domestic law.