Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.B. AND J.S. v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 14+8 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 18984/02
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

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

• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  The Constitutional Court explicitly referred to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Karner v. Austria (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, 24 July 2003) and held that the two provisions in which the extension of insurance cover to unrelated persons living with the insured were discriminatory because they were restricted to persons of the opposite sex.

  Just like differences based on sex, differences based on sexual orientation require particularly serious reasons by way of justification (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 36, ECHR 2003-IX).

• EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02

  E.B. v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  This principle is well entrenched in the Court's case-law (see E.B. v France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 48, ECHR 2008-... with further references).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  The same considerations apply where a constitutional court annuls domestic legislation as being unconstitutional (see Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 58, Series A no. 31).

 
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; and also Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 56, Series A no. 112).
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  Furthermore, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, cited above, § 27; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 24, Series A no. 291-B; Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 29, ECHR 1999-IX; Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 94, ECHR 1999-VI; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, §§ 34 and 40, ECHR 2002-I; and S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 36, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 56501/00

  MATA ESTEVEZ v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  In coming to that conclusion, the Court observed that despite the growing tendency in a number of European States towards the legal and judicial recognition of stable de facto partnerships between homosexuals, given the existence of little common ground between the Contracting States, this was an area in which they still enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation (see Mata Estevez v. Spain (dec.), no. 56501/00, ECHR 2001-VI, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; and also Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 56, Series A no. 112).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  A child born out of such a relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his birth (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; and also Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 56, Series A no. 112).
• EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96

  SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  Furthermore, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, cited above, § 27; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 24, Series A no. 291-B; Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 29, ECHR 1999-IX; Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 94, ECHR 1999-VI; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, §§ 34 and 40, ECHR 2002-I; and S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 36, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  FRETTE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 18984/02

  Furthermore, very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, cited above, § 27; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 24, Series A no. 291-B; Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 29, ECHR 1999-IX; Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, § 94, ECHR 1999-VI; Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, §§ 34 and 40, ECHR 2002-I; and S.L. v. Austria, no. 45330/99, § 36, ECHR 2003-I).
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 45330/99

  S.L. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09

  "Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …

  The Court sees no reason to consider these elements as incompatible, especially in view of the growing general tendency to include relationships between samesex couples within the concept of "family life" (see P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, no. 18984/02, §§ 27-30, 22 July 2010, and Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, §§ 91-94, ECHR 2010) and the acknowledgement of the need for their legal recognition and protection (see Oliari and Others v. Italy, nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, § 165, 21 July 2015).