Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEIZARAS AND LEVICKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BEIZARAS AND LEVICKAS v. LITHUANIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection partially joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BEIZARAS ET LEVICKAS c. LITUANIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

• EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12

  R.B. v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  The Court has likewise accepted that criminal-law measures were required with respect to direct verbal assaults and physical threats motivated by discriminatory attitudes (see R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, §§ 80 and 84-85, 12 April 2016; Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 76, 17 January 2017; and Alkovic v. Montenegro, no. 66895/10, §§ 8, 11, 65 and 69, 5 December 2017).
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  VARNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  In the Government's submission, the case disclosed no element of discrimination (compare and contrast Sidabras and D?¾iautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 34, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, §§ 99-102, 9 July 2013, where the Government had acknowledged differential treatment), for the domestic authorities" decision not to start a criminal investigation regarding the comments at issue had nothing to do with the applicants" sexual orientation (see paragraph 96 above).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13

  KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  The Court has likewise accepted that criminal-law measures were required with respect to direct verbal assaults and physical threats motivated by discriminatory attitudes (see R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, §§ 80 and 84-85, 12 April 2016; Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 76, 17 January 2017; and Alkovic v. Montenegro, no. 66895/10, §§ 8, 11, 65 and 69, 5 December 2017).

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  In this regard, the Court notes that in cases involving complaints under Article 13, based on such allegations of discriminatory attitudes affecting the effectiveness of remedies in the application of generally applicable national laws, the Court has usually not considered it necessary to separately examine the complaints under that provision if a violation of Article 14, taken together with other Convention provisions, has already been found (see, in particular, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 205, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  In that context it has held that although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved that ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94 and 2 others, § 112, ECHR 1999-III; S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 128, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Baczkowski and Others, cited above, §§ 61 and 63, with further references).
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  As to the burden of proof regarding discrimination, the Court has established that once an applicant has shown a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that it was justified (see Begheluri v. Georgia, no. 28490/02, § 172, 7 October 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35159/09

  P.V. c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  The Court has also reiterated that the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention duly covers questions related to sexual orientation and gender identity (see Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-IX; Alekseyev, cited above, § 108; and P.V. v. Spain, no. 35159/09, § 30, 30 November 2010).
• EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96

  SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  The Court has also reiterated that the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention duly covers questions related to sexual orientation and gender identity (see Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-IX; Alekseyev, cited above, § 108; and P.V. v. Spain, no. 35159/09, § 30, 30 November 2010).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  In the Government's submission, the case disclosed no element of discrimination (compare and contrast Sidabras and D?¾iautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 34, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, §§ 99-102, 9 July 2013, where the Government had acknowledged differential treatment), for the domestic authorities" decision not to start a criminal investigation regarding the comments at issue had nothing to do with the applicants" sexual orientation (see paragraph 96 above).
• EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 28475/12

  RATZENBÖCK AND SEYDL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  Differences based solely on considerations of sexual orientation are unacceptable under the Convention (see, more recently, Ratzenböck and Seydl v. Austria, no. 28475/12, § 32, 26 October 2017, and the case-law cited therein).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 4916/07

  Alexejew ./. Russland
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 35943/10

  VONA v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  DENISOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.04.2004 - 62543/00

  GORRAIZ LIZARRAGA ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 43868/18

  WA BAILE c. SUISSE

  En ce qui concerne l'aspect « vie privée'de l'article 8, 1a Cour a déjà eu l'occasion d'observer que cette notion est une notion large, non susceptible d'une définition exhaustive, et qu'elle peut parfois englober des aspects de l'identité physique et sociale d'un individu (Lacatus c. Suisse, no 14065/15, § 54, 19 janvier 2021, Glor c. Suisse, no 13444/04, § 52, CEDH 2009, Mikulic c. Croatie, no 53176/99, § 53, CEDH 2002-I, et Beizaras et Levickas c. Lituanie, no 41288/15, § 117, 14 janvier 2020).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 14065/15

  LACATUS c. SUISSE

  Souvent mentionnée sur le terrain de l'article 3, cette notion a également été évoquée à plusieurs reprises par la Cour sous l'angle de l'article 8 (voir notamment, Kucera c. Slovaquie, no 48666/99, § 122, 17 juillet 2007 ; Rachwalski et Ferenc c. Pologne, no 47709/99, § 73, 28 juillet 2009 ; El-Masri c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 39630/09, § 248, CEDH 2012 ; Khadija Ismayilova c. Azerbaïdjan, nos 65286/13 et 57270/14, § 116, 10 janvier 2019 ; Beizaras et Levickas c. Lituanie, no 41288/15, § 117, 14 janvier 2020 ; Vinks et Ribicka c. Lettonie, no 28926/10, § 114, 30 janvier 2020, et Hudorovic et autres c. Slovénie, nos 24816/14 et 25140/14, § 116, 10 mars 2020).
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 18179/17

  KARTER v. UKRAINE

  The Court considers that without such a strict approach from the law-enforcement authorities, prejudice-motivated crimes would unavoidably be treated on an equal footing with ordinary cases without such overtones, and the resultant indifference would be tantamount to official acquiescence to or even connivance with hate crimes (see Identoba and Others, cited above, § 77, and Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 155, 14 January 2020).

 
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 81249/17

  ALLOUCHE c. FRANCE

  Maîtresse de qualification juridique, la Cour considère que ce grief relève de l'article 8 combiné avec l'article 14 de la Convention qui s'appliquent ratione materiae dans la présente affaire (voir R.B. c. Hongrie, no 64602/12, §§ 78-80, 12 avril 2016, Alkovic c. Monténégro, no 66895/10, § 46, 5 décembre 2017, Beizaras et Levickas c. Lituanie, no 41288/15, § 117, 14 janvier 2020, et Association ACCEPT et autres c. Roumanie, no 19237/16, §§ 62-68, 1er juin 2021, ainsi que, mutatis mutandis, dans le contexte de l'article 3, Skorjanec c. Croatie, no 25536/14, §§ 37-38, 28 mars 2017 (extraits), et Balázs c. Hongrie, no 15529/12, § 54, 20 octobre 2015).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 40792/10

  FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  En pareil cas, le droit des groupes minoritaires à la liberté de religion, d'expression et de réunion deviendrait purement théorique et non pratique et effectif comme le veut la Convention (Barankevitch c. Russie, no 10519/03, § 31, 26 juillet 2007, Bayev et autres, précité, § 70, et Alekseyev c. Russie, nos 4916/07 et 2 autres, § 81, 21 octobre 2010, voir, au-delà de l'État défendeur, Sekmadienis Ltd. c. Lituanie, no 69317/14, § 82, 30 janvier 2018, et Beizaras et Levickas c. Lituanie, no 41288/15, § 123, 14 janvier 2020).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 31172/19

  JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES v. FINLAND

  By extension, this also applied to the privacy rights of individual adherents guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, particularly where those privacy rights were inextricably linked to the exercise of a religious belief or practice as in the present case (reference was made to Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, §§ 78-81, 14 January 2020; Gorraiz Lizarraga and Others v. Spain, no. 62543/00, §§ 37-39, ECHR 2004-III; and Karastelev and Others v. Russia, no. 16435/10, §§ 72 and 75, 6 October 2020).
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 57195/17

  Keine Verletzung des Rechts auf privates Familienleben: Maddie McCann's Eltern …

  Cependant, pour que l'article 8 de la Convention entre en ligne de compte, l'atteinte à la réputation personnelle doit présenter un certain niveau de gravité et avoir été effectuée de manière à causer un préjudice à la jouissance personnelle du droit au respect de la vie privée (voir, Bédat, précité, § 72, Denisov c. Ukraine [GC], no 76639/11, § 112, 25 septembre 2018, Beizaras et Levickas c. Lituanie, no 41288/15, § 117, 14 janvier 2020, et De Carvalho Basso c. Portugal, (déc.), nos 73053/14 et 33075/17, § 43, 4 février 2021).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 70489/17

  ALGIRDAS BUTKEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  The Court also finds it plain that the conversation contained no elements related to the applicant's private life, such as questions relating to his health (see Biriuk v. Lithuania, no. 23373/03, § 39, 25 November 2008) or sexual life (see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 109, 14 January 2020), or similar matters, except for the question of reputation, which the Court will revert to below.
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19

  GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The Court has likewise accepted that criminal-law measures were required with respect to direct verbal assaults and physical threats motivated by discriminatory attitudes (see Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, §§ 110-11, 14 January 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 84048/17

  EIGIRDAS AND VĮ "DEMOKRATIJOS PLETROS FONDAS" v. LITHUANIA

  It has held that in order for Article 8 to come into play, an attack on a person's reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 83, 7 February 2012; Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 76, 27 June 2017; A. v. Norway, no. 28070/06, § 64, 9 April 2009; Kunitsyna v. Russia, no. 9406/05, § 42, 13 December 2016; Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, § 117, 14 January 2020; and Balaskas, cited above, §§ 37 and 40).
• EGMR, 09.02.2023 - 58951/18

  C8 (CANAL 8) c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 20741/10

  X v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 3041/19

  G.T.B. v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 71367/12

  OGANEZOVA v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 46712/15

  BERKMAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 37477/11

  CENTRE OF SOCIETIES FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS IN RUSSIA AND FROLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 36908/13

  N.S. v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 60183/17

  PRICOPE v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 37857/14

  YUSUFELI ILÇESINI GÜZELLESTIRME YASATMA KÜLTÜR VARLIKLARINI KORUMA DERNEGI v. …
• EGMR - 9195/23 (anhängig)

  SVIRPLYS AND LATVYS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 32467/22

  MITTENDORFER v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 39954/09

  NEPOMNYASHCHIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 41892/19

  THIBAUT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.10.2021 - 32934/19

  SALTINYTE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 07.09.2021 - 27516/14

  M.P. c. PORTUGAL