Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HEUDENS v. BELGIUM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.02.1993 - 14396/88

  FEY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 24630/94

  What is determining is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Langborger judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 155, p. 16, para. 32; Fey judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, para. 30; and Holm judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-A, p. 14, para. 30).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  HOFFMANN c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 24630/94

  The Convention organs have constantly held that a difference in treatment between individuals, placed in similar situations, is discriminatory within the meaning of Article 14 (Art. 14) if it "has no objective and reasonable justification, that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Hoffmann judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, pp. 58-59, paras. 31 and 33).
• EGMR, 25.11.1993 - 14191/88

  HOLM v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EKMR, 22.05.1995 - 24630/94

  What is determining is whether this fear can be held to be objectively justified (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Langborger judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 155, p. 16, para. 32; Fey judgment of 24 February 1993, Series A no. 255-A, p. 12, para. 30; and Holm judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-A, p. 14, para. 30).

• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 23459/03

  BAYATYAN v. ARMENIA

  En particulier, la Commission aurait dit dans les affaires Peters c. Pays-Bas (no 22793/93, décision de la Commission du 30 novembre 1974, non publiée) et Heudens c. Belgique (no 24630/94, décision de la Commission du 22 mai 1995, non publiée), qui sont les dernières dans lesquelles elle se soit prononcée sur la question, que le droit à la liberté de pensée, de conscience et de religion garanti par l'article 9 ne concernait pas l'exemption du service militaire obligatoire pour des motifs religieux ou politiques.