Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (15)
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00
TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The Court reiterates that racial discrimination is a particularly egregious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction (see, in the context of Article 14, Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII, and Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.It is only once an applicant has shown a difference in treatment that the burden of proof shifts to the Government to show that it was justified (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 177, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 57, ECHR 2005-XII).
The present judgment rightly emphasises the importance of combating racial discrimination, which "is a particularly invidious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction" (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII).
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The Human Rights Centre of Ghent University referred to the case-law of the Court and argued not only that in certain cases the burden of proof should be reversed, but also that States had a positive procedural obligation to investigate allegations of ethnic profiling (citing Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII).The two cases which the Chamber of the Third Section has decided on the same day - Muhammad v. Spain (no. 34085/17) and Basu v. Germany (no. 215/19) - followed the Court's case-law as set out in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 157, ECHR 2005-VII), Stoica v. Romania (no. 42722/02 § 126, 4 March 2008), and the more recent cases quoted in both judgments delivered today (see Basu, cited above, §§ 38-41, and paragraphs 91-95 of the present judgment).
In short, and applying the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires an in-depth and effective investigation of all incidents that may have a racist, xenophobic or other discriminatory motive (ECHR, [B.S.] v. Spain, no. 47159/08, 24 July 2012, or Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, [ECHR 2005-VII], all lines of inquiry have been exhausted to try to clarify the facts without it having been possible to obtain sufficient incriminating evidence to be able to bring criminal charges against the persons against whom the complaint was directed." (ibid.).
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 47159/08
B.S. c. ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The respondent State's obligation to investigate possible racist overtones to a violent act is an obligation to use best endeavours and not absolute (see B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, § 58, 24 July 2012).In short, and applying the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires an in-depth and effective investigation of all incidents that may have a racist, xenophobic or other discriminatory motive (ECHR, [B.S.] v. Spain, no. 47159/08, 24 July 2012, or Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, [ECHR 2005-VII], all lines of inquiry have been exhausted to try to clarify the facts without it having been possible to obtain sufficient incriminating evidence to be able to bring criminal charges against the persons against whom the complaint was directed." (ibid.).
- EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 9077/18
Y AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
In other contexts, the Court has already pointed out some kinds of prima facie evidence which can shift the burden of proof on to the respondent State, such as reports by non-governmental organisations or international observers, or statistical data from the authorities or academic institutions (see, as a recent example, Y and Others v. Bulgaria, no.9077/18, § 122, 22 March 2022). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97
THLIMMENOS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
Such a measure therefore falls within the scope of Article 8. It is not necessary to decide whether a simple check of a person's identification papers also falls within the scope of Article 8. For Article 14 to be applicable it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the wider ambit of private life (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 § 129, ECHR 2012; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 29555/13
F.O. v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
In its case-law, the Court has already held in many cases that the authorities" positive obligations under the Convention may include a duty to establish an adequate legal framework affording protection of vulnerable people (see Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 89, ECHR 2004-XII, concerning Article 2 of the Convention; Volodina v. Russia, no. 41261/17, §§ 77 and 85, 9 July 2019, and O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 148, ECHR 2014 (extracts), relating to Article 3 of the Convention; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 285, ECHR 2010 (extracts), as regards Article 4 of the Convention; and Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, §§ 80 and 89, ECHR 2013, and F.O. v. Croatia, no. 29555/13, § 91, 22 April 2021, regarding Article 8 of the Convention) or providing effective safeguards against arbitrariness by State agents (see Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 209, ECHR 2011 (extracts)). - EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
E.B. v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
Such a measure therefore falls within the scope of Article 8. It is not necessary to decide whether a simple check of a person's identification papers also falls within the scope of Article 8. For Article 14 to be applicable it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the wider ambit of private life (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 § 129, ECHR 2012; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97
FRETTE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
Such a measure therefore falls within the scope of Article 8. It is not necessary to decide whether a simple check of a person's identification papers also falls within the scope of Article 8. For Article 14 to be applicable it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the wider ambit of private life (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 § 129, ECHR 2012; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
- EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 59648/13
VIG v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
In particular, the Court has found that the use of coercive powers conferred by legislation to require an individual to submit to an identity check and a detailed search of his person, his clothing and his personal belongings amounted to an interference with the right to respect for private life (see Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, § 63, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Vig v. Hungary, no. 59648/13, § 49, 14 January 2021). - EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 3289/10
BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 24329/02
SOARE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06
SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 215/19
Diskriminierung: Deutschland hat Racial-Profiling-Vorwurf nicht genug geprüft
- EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02
STOICA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 43868/18
WA BAILE c. SUISSE
La Cour précise que dans le cadre de la requête no 43868/18, le requérant invoque à l'appui d'une violation de l'article 14 non seulement l'article 8, mais aussi l'article 6 § 2. Toutefois, à la lumière des arrêts rendus récemment en matière de profilage racial (Basu c. Allemagne, no 215/19, 18 octobre 2022, et Muhammad c. Espagne, no 34085/17, 18 octobre 2022), la Cour estime opportun d'examiner le présent grief sous l'angle de l'article 14 combiné seulement avec l'article 8 de la Convention. - EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16
ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA
The authorities' responsibilities under Article 14 to secure respect without discrimination for a fundamental value may also come into play when possible racist attitudes resulting in the stigmatisation of the person concerned are at issue in the context of Article 8. It is even more so when the said attitudes are displayed not by private individuals but by State agents (see Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, § 67, 18 October 2022). - EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19
GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
The Court observes that, in view of the circumstances of the present case, the domestic authorities were confronted with prima facie indications of hate speech, threats and humiliating treatment motivated by the individual applicants' religious beliefs (compare Begheluri, cited above, § 176; see also R.B. v. Hungary, §§ 83-84, Association ACCEPT and Others, § 114, Alkovic, § 66, Király and Dömötör, §§ 72 and 80, all cited above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, §§ 63-68, 18 October 2022).