Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORSUS ET AUTRES c. CROATIE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 6-1 Violation de l'art. 14+P1-2 Préjudice moral - réparation (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORSUS AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+P1 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 14+P1-2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORSUS AND OTHERS v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 14+P1-2;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 15766/03
• EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03
• EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 15766/03

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  Referring to the Court's case-law concerning the right to education and in particular to the judgments in the cases of D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic ([GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-... ) and Sampanis and Others v. Greece (no. 32526/05, 5 June 2008), the Greek Helsinki Monitor stressed the following principles.

  The case can clearly be distinguished from D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic ([GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-...) and Sampanis and Others v. Greece (no. 32526/05, 5 June 2008), as the majority is well aware.

• EGMR, 27.02.1980 - 6903/75

  DEWEER c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  However, under the Court's case-law, the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - in so far as such a waiver is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner, and be given in full knowledge of the facts, that is to say on the basis of informed consent (Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, §§ 37-38) and without constraint (Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 51).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 10802/84

  PFEIFER ET PLANKL c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  However, under the Court's case-law, the waiver of a right guaranteed by the Convention - in so far as such a waiver is permissible - must be established in an unequivocal manner, and be given in full knowledge of the facts, that is to say on the basis of informed consent (Pfeifer and Plankl v. Austria, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 227, §§ 37-38) and without constraint (Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, § 51).

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71

  KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  30-32, §§ 3-5, Series A no. 6; Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 52, Series A no. 23; and Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 152, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  However, Article 14 does not prohibit a member State from treating groups differently in order to correct "factual inequalities" between them; indeed in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may in itself give rise to a breach of Article 14 (see Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), cited above, p. 34, § 10; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV; and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 65731/01, § 51, ECHR 2006-VI).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  According to the Court's well-established case-law, discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV, and Okpisz v. Germany, no. 59140/00, § 33, 25 October 2005).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.03.2010 - 15766/03

  The Court has also accepted that a general policy or measure which is apparently neutral but has disproportionately prejudicial effects on persons or groups of persons who, as for instance in the present case, are identifiable only on the basis of an ethnic criterion, may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group (see, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001, and Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58461/00, 6 January 2005; and Sampanis, cited above, § 68), unless that measure is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate, necessary and proportionate.
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 29515/95

  LARKOS c. CHYPRE

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 20.09.2012 - C-394/11

  Belov - Zulässigkeit des Vorabentscheidungsersuchens - "Gericht eines …

  8 - Vgl. beispielhaft die Urteile des EGMR (Große Kammer) D. H. u. a./Tschechische Republik vom 13. November 2007 (Beschwerde-Nr. 57325/00, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2007-IV) und Orsus u. a./Kroatien vom 16. März 2010 (Beschwerde-Nr. 15766/03, noch nicht im Recueil des arrêts et décisions veröffentlicht).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19841/06

  BAGDONAVICIUS ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  La Cour elle-même a solennellement reconnu que, du fait de leur histoire mouvementée et de leur perpétuel déracinement, les Roms sont devenus, par la force des choses, une minorité spécifique particulièrement vulnérable et défavorisée[3], exigeant ainsi, de la part des autorités nationales, une protection renforcée (voir notamment l'arrêt Horvath et Kiss c. Hongrie, 29 janvier 2013, no 11146/11, § 102, et surtout Orsus et autres c. Croatie [GC], 16 mars 2010, no 15766/03, § 147, CEDH 2010, Alajos Kiss c. Hongrie, 20 mai 2010, no 38832/06, § 42, et D.H. et autres c. République tchèque [GC], 13 novembre 2007, no 57325/00, § 182, CEDH 2007-IV) dont on peut légitimement penser qu'elle devait bénéficier en l'espèce aux requérants.