Webinar: Kostenloses Webinar zum neuen KI-Assistenten am Mi. den 14. Oktober 2026 11:30 Uhr Unverbindlich anmelden
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1994,13839
EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88 (https://dejure.org/1994,13839)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.07.1994 - 13580/88 (https://dejure.org/1994,13839)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Juli 1994 - 13580/88 (https://dejure.org/1994,13839)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1994,13839) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

    Art. 14+4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 14, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 4 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
    Violation of Art. 14+4-3-d Not necessary to examine P1-1 Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT c. ALLEMAGNE

    Art. 14+4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 14, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 4 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 14+4-3-d Non-lieu à examiner P1-1 Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale (französisch)

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Hinweis zu den Links:
Zu grauen Einträgen liegen derzeit keine weiteren Informationen vor. Sie können diese Links aber nutzen, um die Einträge beispielsweise in Ihre Merkliste aufzunehmen.

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 1995, 1733 (Ls.)
  • NVwZ 1995, 365
  • 12/1993/407/486
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (98)Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
    Rn. 3 In my opinion this is the logical and juridically correct approach for a reading of Article 14 (art. 14) (I refer in particular to the judgments and opinions expressed in the Marckx case (Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31)).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
    Although the application of Article 14 (art. 14) does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous -, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, in particular, the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, para. 71, and the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, para. 36).
  • EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
    The four subparagraphs of paragraph 3 (art. 4-3), notwithstanding their diversity, are grounded on the governing ideas of the general interest, social solidarity and what is normal in the ordinary course of affairs (see the Van der Mussele v. Belgium judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 19, para. 38).
  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

    BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
    However, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference of treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 21-22, para. 67, and the Burghartz v. Switzerland judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 29, para. 27).
  • EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

    Inze ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
    Although the application of Article 14 (art. 14) does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to this extent it is autonomous -, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, in particular, the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, para. 71, and the Inze v. Austria judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 17, para. 36).
  • EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

    SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
    However, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference of treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see the Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, pp. 21-22, para. 67, and the Burghartz v. Switzerland judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 29, para. 27).
  • EuGH - 210/83 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

    Badische Stahlwerke / Kommission

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
    In subsequent decisions delivered... on 6 December 1978 (1 BvR 722/77), 13 November 1979 (1 BvR 768/79), 5 July 1983 (1 BvR 210/83), 19 November 1985 (1 BvR 609/85) and 11 December 1985 (1 BvR 1277/85), it stated that from the point of view of Article 3 para.
  • EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 22028/04

    Mehr Sorgerecht für ledige Väter

    Abdulaziz, Cabales und Balkandali ./. Vereinigtes Königreich vom 28. Mai 1985, Serie A Band 94, Rdnr. 71, und Urteil .K. S. ./. Deutschland vom 18. Juli 1994, Serie A Band 291-B, Rdnr. 22).
  • EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

    Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

    Courts had consistently rejected arguments based on paternalism and perceptions that women were more "vulnerable" than men and in need of "protection" (they referred to Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, no. 13580/88, 18 July 1994, § 28, Series A no. 291-B, concerning the exemption of women from service compulsory for men on the basis of women's "physical and mental characteristics", and Emel Boyraz v. Turkey, no. 61960/08, § 52, 2 December 2014, concerning the restriction of recruitment of security officers to men due to risks and night-time work).

    See, in this connection, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 28, Series A no. 291-B, and Emel Boyraz v. Turkey, no. 61960/08, § 52, 2 December 2014; Court of Justice of the European Union, Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, case C-222/84, §§ 44-46, and CEDAW Communication No. 60/2013, CEDAW W/C/63/D/60/2013, 25 February 2016).

  • EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15

    Sex ist auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig

    In earlier cases in the field of discrimination (see, for example, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94; and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B) the Court found a violation of Article 14 but did not acknowledge stereotyping as part of the discriminatory conduct.

    In most cases, the Court has distinguished between two comparable abstract categories[27] of people treated in a different way by domestic legislation (see for example, among many other authorities, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, where a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (d) was found as only men, not women, were obliged to serve as firefighters or, alternatively, had to pay financial compensation; Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, where a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 8 was found, as domestic law allowed a woman to add her maiden name to that of her husband but a man could not add his name to that of his wife; Konstantin Markin, cited above, where Article 14 discrimination was found (also in conjunction with Article 8) as fathers, unlike mothers, were not entitled to take parental leave; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009, where the Court found a violation of Article 14 in combination with Articles 2 and 3 as the domestic legislation did not provide for the protection of women against domestic violence; and it is interesting to compare that case to Rumor v. Italy, no. 72964/10, 27 May 2014, where a woman had complained about domestic violence, but the Court did not find a violation of Article 14 combined with Article 3 as there was a legal framework in Italy enabling the authorities to take efficient measures against domestic violence and this framework had revealed itself to be efficient).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht