Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,65068
EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06 (https://dejure.org/2006,65068)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.07.2006 - 18059/06 (https://dejure.org/2006,65068)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Juli 2006 - 18059/06 (https://dejure.org/2006,65068)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,65068) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (44)Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    In other words, the notion of discrimination includes in general cases where a person or group is treated, without proper justification, less favourably than another, even though the more favourable treatment is not called for by the Convention (Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 39, § 82).
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    The rejection of a complaint as "manifestly ill-founded" amounts to a decision that "there is not even a prima facie case against the respondent State" (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 10, § 18).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    A difference of treatment in the exercise of a right laid down by the Convention must not only pursue a legitimate aim: Article 14 is likewise violated when it is clearly established that there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, for example, Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, p. 586, § 30, and Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 66-67, § 177).
  • EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

    Inze ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and its background (Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 15, § 40, and Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 41), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court.
  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and its background (Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 15, § 40, and Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 41), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court.
  • EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

    Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14. It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that this distinction is discriminatory (Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

    WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    As far as Article 14 of the Convention is concerned, the Court recalls that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
  • EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 36797/97

    G.M.B. AND K.M. v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 18059/06
    Article 14 does not prohibit distinctions in treatment which are founded on an objective assessment of essentially different factual circumstances and which, being based on the public interest, strike a fair balance between the protection of the interests of the community and respect for the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Convention (see, among other authorities, G.M.B. and K.M. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 36797/97, 27 September 2001).
  • EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 23563/07

    [FRE]

    Ces mêmes considérations l'amènent à conclure, sous l'angle de l'article 13, que l'on n'était pas en présence de griefs défendables (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Al-Shari et autres c. Italie (déc.), no 57/03, 5 juillet 2005, Walter c. Italie (déc.), no 18059/06, 11 juillet 2006, et Schiavone c. Italie (déc.), no 65039/01, 13 novembre 2007).
  • EGMR, 08.10.2026 - 10763/18
    Rn. 14 Having declared inadmissible the substantive complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant company has no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Walter v. Italy (dec.), no. 18059/06, 11 July 2006).
  • EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 38083/07

    COLLETTA ET ZOLESI c. ITALIE

    Rn. 24 Since the Court has found that the applicants' complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention are manifestly ill-founded, it follows that the applicants do not have an arguable claim under Article 13. This complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention (see, amongst many other authorities, Walter v. Italy (dec.), no. 18059/06, 11 July 2006) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
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