Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAPAGEORGIOU AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-general (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Respect for parents' religious convictions);Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PAPAGEORGIOU ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE et 1 autre affaire

  Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 1988/02

  SOFIANOPOULOS, SPAÏDIOTIS, METALLINOS et KONTOGIANNIS contre la GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  1977/02, 1988/02 and 1997/02, ECHR 2002-X).
• EGMR, 25.02.1982 - 7511/76

  CAMPBELL ET COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  The word "respect" in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 means more than "acknowledge" or "take into account"; in addition to a primarily negative undertaking, it implies some positive obligation on the part of the State (see Lautsi and Others, cited above, § 61, and Campbell and Cosans v. United Kingdom, 25 February 1982, § 37, Series A no. 48).
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  The Court also reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government pleading non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, in particular, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 74, 25 March 2014, and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015).

 
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  The Court further reiterates that, where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one and it is normally that individual's choice as to which (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000; and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32) Under the established case-law, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see, inter alia, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009, and Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  In this regard, the applicant must be able to justify his or her status as a victim throughout the proceedings (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 30, 7 May 2002, and Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 80, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 28.04.2009 - 39311/05

  KARAKO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  The Court further reiterates that, where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one and it is normally that individual's choice as to which (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000; and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32) Under the established case-law, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see, inter alia, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009, and Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  The Court further reiterates that, where several remedies are available, the applicant is not required to pursue more than one and it is normally that individual's choice as to which (see Karakó v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, § 14, 28 April 2009; Hilal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45276/99, 8 February 2000; and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 23, Series A no. 32) Under the established case-law, when a remedy has been pursued, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see, inter alia, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009, and Kozacioglu v. Turkey [GC], no. 2334/03, § 40, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 1448/04

  HASAN ET EYLEM ZENGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  The Court has chosen to consider cases solely under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, for example as regards the administration of compulsory classes in religious culture and morals in State schools, and the restricted opportunities for administering such classes (see Mansur Yalçin and Others v. Turkey, no. 21163/11, 16 September 2014), or a refusal to exempt a State school pupil whose family was of the Alevi faith from mandatory lessons in religion and morals (see Hasan and Elyem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, 9 October 2007), or again a refusal by educational authorities to grant children complete exemption from compulsory classes on Christianity (see Folgerø and Others v. Norway [GC], no. 15472/02, ECHR 2007).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  Parents are primarily responsible for the education and teaching of their children; it is in the discharge of this duty that parents may require the State to respect their religious and philosophical convictions (see Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 52, Series A no. 23).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.10.2019 - 4762/18

  The Court also reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government pleading non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, in particular, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II; Vuckovic and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 17153/11 and 29 others, § 74, 25 March 2014, and Gherghina v. Romania [GC] (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015).