Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STRØBYE AND ROSENLIND v. DENMARK

  No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-general (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote);No violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) read in the light of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - (P1-3) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  STRØBYE v. DENMARK and 1 other application

  Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  In addition to the principle above about the margin of appreciation being wide in this area, the Court recalls that the quality of the parliamentary and judicial review of the necessity of a general measure, such as the disputed disenfranchisement imposed as a consequence of declaring a person legally incompetent, is of particular importance, including to the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation (see, among others, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, §§ 117 and 129, 4 April 2018).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98

  Zeugen Jehovas u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  Instead, it must confine itself, as far as possible, without losing sight of the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, for example, Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013; Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 69-70, 20 October 2011; Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83 in fine, ECHR 2010; and Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12

  CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  In addition to the principle above about the margin of appreciation being wide in this area, the Court recalls that the quality of the parliamentary and judicial review of the necessity of a general measure, such as the disputed disenfranchisement imposed as a consequence of declaring a person legally incompetent, is of particular importance, including to the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation (see, among others, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and Correia de Matos v. Portugal [GC], no. 56402/12, §§ 117 and 129, 4 April 2018).

• EGMR, 09.04.2002 - 46726/99

  PODKOLZINA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  The Court reaffirms that the margin in this area is wide (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 52, and, more recently, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 63, ECHR 1999-I; see also Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 201, ECHR 2000-IV, and Podkolzina v. Latvia, no. 46726/99, § 33, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 31981/96

  HILBE contre le LIECHTENSTEIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  For example, the imposition of a minimum age may be envisaged with a view to ensuring the maturity of those participating in the electoral process or, in some circumstances, eligibility may be geared to criteria, such as residence, to identify those with sufficiently continuous or close links to, or a stake in, the country concerned (see Hilbe v. Liechtenstein (dec.), no. 31981/96, ECHR 1999-VI, and Melnychenko v. Ukraine, no. 17707/02, § 56, ECHR 2004-X).
• EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 37700/05

  SEYIDZADE v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  The Court finds no reason to hold otherwise (see, for example, a contrario, Seyidzade v. Azerbaijan, no. 37700/05, §§ 31-40, 3 December 2009.
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  Instead, it must confine itself, as far as possible, without losing sight of the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, for example, Donohoe v. Ireland, no. 19165/08, § 73, 12 December 2013; Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 13279/05, §§ 69-70, 20 October 2011; Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no. 926/05, § 83 in fine, ECHR 2010; and Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 8513/11

  ABIL v. AZERBAIJAN (No.2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  However, the rule of law, one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, is inherent in all the Articles of the Convention and its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 50, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, and Abil v. Azerbaijan (no. 2), no. 8513/11, § 66, 5 December 2019).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9267/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  "57. [T]he Court has established that [Article 3 of Protocol No. 1] guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, pp. 22-23, §§ 46-51).
• EKMR, 06.10.1967 - 2728/66

  X. against the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.02.2021 - 25802/18

  Universal suffrage has become the basic principle (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt, cited above, p. 23, § 51, citing X v. Germany, no. 2728/66, Commission decision of 6 October 1967, Collection 25, pp. 38-41).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.02.2022 - 26081/17

  MARINOV c. BULGARIE

  INTERNATIONAL and european LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND COMPARATIVE PRACTICE 16. The relevant international and European material concerning the right to vote of individuals deprived of legal capacity have been summarised in Strøbye and Rosenlind v. Denmark (nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18, §§ 66-71, 2 February 2021) and Caamaño Valle v. Spain (no. 43564/17, §§ 21-28, 11 May 2021).

  The Court emphasises, in that respect, that the quality of the parliamentary and judicial review of the necessity of a general measure, such as the disputed disenfranchisement imposed as a consequence of declaring a person legally incapable, is of particular importance, including to the operation of the relevant margin of appreciation (see Strøbye and Rosenlind v. Denmark, nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18, § 92, 2 February 2021).

• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 36345/16

  L.B. v. HUNGARY

  En effet, lorsqu'elle est saisie de requêtes individuelles, la Cour n'a pas pour tâche d'examiner l'affaire dans l'abstrait (Kalda, précité, § 50, Anchugov et Gladkov c. Russie, nos 11157/04 et 15162/05, §§ 51-52, 4 juillet 2013, et Strøbye et Rosenlind c. Danemark, nos 25802/18 et 27338/18, § 115, 2 février 2021).
• EGMR, 11.05.2021 - 43564/17

  CAAMANO VALLE v. SPAIN

  [1] I will not discuss the recent case of Strøbye and Rosenlind v. Denmark (nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18, 2 February 2021), as the judgment in that case is not yet final at the moment of writing of this opinion.

• EGMR, 23.09.2025 - 1048/20

  HORA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  25802/18 and 27338/18, § 115, 2 February 2021).
• EGMR, 19.11.2024 - 39468/17

  CLIPEA AND IAPARA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The reason for this approach, which questions certain classifications per se, is that such groups were historically subject to prejudice with lasting consequences, resulting in their social exclusion (see Cînţa v. Romania, no. 3891/19, § 41, 18 February 2020, and Strøbye and Rosenlind v. Denmark, nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18, § 113, 2 February 2021).
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 14581/20

  KALDA v. ESTONIA

  However, unlike the above-mentioned cases where the Court found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, it notes that in the present case - in the proceedings concerning the applicant's right to vote - the domestic courts assessed the proportionality of the application of the voting ban in the specific circumstances pertaining to the applicant and concluded that it had indeed been proportionate (see paragraphs 10 and 16-23 above; compare, Strøbye and Rosenlind v. Denmark, nos. 25802/18 and 27338/18, §§ 103-110, 2 February 2021, where the domestic court had thoroughly examined the justification and proportionality of the limitation of the applicants' voting rights; compare and contrast, Hirst, cited above, § 80, where the Court noted that the domestic courts, when addressing the question of the voting ban, had themselves not undertaken any assessment of proportionality of the ban).