Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KÖSE ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 6 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KÖSE AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 6 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (14) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 17.06.2004 - 71860/01
ÇIFTÇI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02
It should be noted that school rules of this kind are general rules that apply to all pupils independently of their religious beliefs and serve among other things the legitimate aim of preserving the neutral character of secondary education, which is intended to protect adolescents when they are at an impressionable age (see, mutatis mutandis, Çiftçi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 71860/01, ECHR 2004-VI). - EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 35753/03
PHULL c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02
The Court does not consider it necessary to verify whether or not the applicants had domestic remedies available to them within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention for their complaints under the Convention as the application is, in any event, inadmissible for other reasons which are set out below (see, to the same effect, Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I). - EKMR, 09.03.1977 - 6853/74
40 MERES c. SUEDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02
On this subject, the Convention institutions have consistently said that the regulation of educational institutions may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community (see Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, § 5, Series A no. 6), and that the competent authorities must be left some discretion in this sphere (see, mutatis mutandis, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 53, Series A no. 23; Çiftçi, cited above; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8160/78, Commission decision of 12 March 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 22, p. 27; and 40 mothers v. Sweden, no. 6853/74, Commission decision of 9 March 1977, DR 9, p. 27).
- EKMR, 12.03.1981 - 8160/78
X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02
On this subject, the Convention institutions have consistently said that the regulation of educational institutions may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community (see Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, § 5, Series A no. 6), and that the competent authorities must be left some discretion in this sphere (see, mutatis mutandis, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 53, Series A no. 23; Çiftçi, cited above; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8160/78, Commission decision of 12 March 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 22, p. 27; and 40 mothers v. Sweden, no. 6853/74, Commission decision of 9 March 1977, DR 9, p. 27). - EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02
On this subject, the Convention institutions have consistently said that the regulation of educational institutions may vary in time and in place according to the needs and resources of the community (see Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium" (merits), 23 July 1968, § 5, Series A no. 6), and that the competent authorities must be left some discretion in this sphere (see, mutatis mutandis, Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 53, Series A no. 23; Çiftçi, cited above; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 8160/78, Commission decision of 12 March 1981, Decisions and Reports (DR) 22, p. 27; and 40 mothers v. Sweden, no. 6853/74, Commission decision of 9 March 1977, DR 9, p. 27). - EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRČCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02
It also prohibits the retrospective application of criminal law (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 52, Series A no. 260-A).
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
133. It has thus ruled on bans on the wearing of religious symbols in State schools, imposed on teaching staff (see, inter alia, Dahlab, decision cited above, and Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II) and on pupils and students (see, inter alia, Leyla ahin, cited above; Köse and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 26625/02, ECHR 2006-II; Kervanci v. France, no. 31645/04, 4 December 2008; Aktas v. France (dec.), no. 43563/08, 30 June 2009; and Ranjit Singh v. France (dec.) no. 27561/08, 30 June 2009), on an obligation to remove clothing with a religious connotation in the context of a security check (Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I, and El Morsli v. France (dec.), no. 15585/06, 4 March 2008), and on an obligation to appear bareheaded on identity photos for use on official documents (Mann Singh v. France (dec.), no. 24479/07, 11 June 2007). - EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 64846/11
Kopftuch tragen zählt nicht zu den Menschenrechten
Voir, selon le cas, Köse et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 26625/02, CEDH 2006-II, Dogru c. France, no 27058/05, 4 décembre 2008, Kervanci c. France, no 31645/04, 4 décembre 2008, Gamaleddyn c. France (déc.), no 18527/08, 30 juin 2009, Aktas v. France (déc.), no 43563/08, 30 juin 2009, Ranjit Singh c. France (déc.), no 27561/08, 30 juin 2009, Jasvir Singh c. France (déc.), no 25463/08, 30 juin 2009, et Leyla Sahin c. Turquie [GC], no 44774/98, CEDH 2005-XI. 3. Voir, pour confirmation de Kurtulmus bien que dans un contexte différent, Ahmet Arslan et autres c. Turquie, no 41135/98, § 48, 23 février 2010.4. - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 27058/05
DOGRU c. FRANCE
Turkey (dec.), no. 26625/02, ECHR 2006-...).
- EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 43563/08
AKTAS c. FRANCE
Elles ont pour finalité de préserver le caractčre neutre et laďc des établissements d'enseignement et s'appliquent ŕ tout signe religieux ostensible (voir Köse et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 26625/02, CEDH 2006-II). - EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 37829/05
MELEK SIMA YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents sont essentiellement décrits dans les affaires Leyla Sahin c. Turquie ([GC], no 44774/98, §§ 29-69, CEDH 2005-...), Kurtulmus c. Turquie ((déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-...), Köse et autres c. Turquie ((déc.), no 26625/02, CEDH 2006-...) et Meral c. Turquie (no 33446/02, §§ 22-26, 27 novembre 2007). - EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 19728/02
AKGÜL c. TURQUIE
Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents en vigueur ŕ l'époque des faits sont essentiellement décrits dans les affaires Leyla Sahin c. Turquie ([GC], no 44774/98, §§ 29-69, CEDH 2005-...), Kurtulmus c. Turquie ((déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-...), Köse et autres c. Turquie ((déc.), no 26625/02, CEDH 2006-...) et Meral c. Turquie (no 33446/02, §§ 22-26, 27 novembre 2007, non définitif). - EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 41296/04
KARADUMAN ET TANDOGAN c. TURQUIE
Le droit et la pratique internes pertinents en vigueur ŕ l'époque des faits sont essentiellement décrits dans les affaires Leyla Sahin c. Turquie ([GC], no 44774/98, §§ 29-69, CEDH 2005-...) ; Kurtulmus c. Turquie ((déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-...) ; Köse et autres c. Turquie ((déc.), no 26625/02, CEDH 2006-...) ; Meral c. Turquie (no 33446/02, §§ 22-26, 27 novembre 2007, non définitif). - EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 37829/05
YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 9907/02
ARAÇ c. TURQUIE
Par ailleurs, dans sa jurisprudence constante relative ŕ l'article 9 de la Convention et ŕ la premičre phrase de l'article 2 du Protocole no 1, 1a Cour a toujours dit que les modalités de la mise en Ĺ?uvre de telles réglementations entrent dans la marge d'appréciation de l'État défendeur (voir, entre plusieurs autres, Leyla Sahin c. Turquie [GC], no 44774/98, §§ 109 et 154, CEDH 2005-..., Phull c. France (déc.), no 35753/03, CEDH 2005-..., et Köse et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 26625/02, CEDH 2006-...). - EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 25463/08
JASVIR SINGH c. FRANCE
Elles ont pour finalité de préserver le caractčre neutre et laďc des établissements d'enseignement et s'appliquent ŕ tout signe religieux ostensible (voir Köse et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 26625/02, CEDH 2006-II). - EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 41296/04
KARADUMAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 29134/08
GHAZAL c. FRANCE
- EGMR - 50681/20 (anhängig)
MIKYAS ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 27561/08
RANJIT SINGH c. FRANCE