Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRAZIANI-WEISS v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 2, Art. 14, Art. 14+4 MRK
  No violation of Art. 4 No violation of Art. 14+4 (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRAZIANI-WEISS v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Art. 4;No violation of Art. 14+4

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Graziani-Weiss v. Austria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2012, 3566

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 73316/01

  SILIADIN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06

  In the case of Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, § 32, Series A no. 70; see also Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2005-VII and, as a recent authority, Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§ 117-118, 7 July 2011) the Court had recourse to ILO Convention No. 29 concerning forced or compulsory labour.
• EGMR, 23.11.1983 - 8919/80

  VAN DER MUSSELE c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06

  In the case of Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, § 32, Series A no. 70; see also Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2005-VII and, as a recent authority, Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§ 117-118, 7 July 2011) the Court had recourse to ILO Convention No. 29 concerning forced or compulsory labour.
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06

  According to the Court's case-law, discrimination means treating persons in relevantly similar situations differently without an objective and reasonable justification (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 37452/02

  STUMMER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06

  In the case of Van der Mussele v. Belgium (23 November 1983, § 32, Series A no. 70; see also Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2005-VII and, as a recent authority, Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§ 117-118, 7 July 2011) the Court had recourse to ILO Convention No. 29 concerning forced or compulsory labour.
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06

  The Court has further noted the specific structure of Article 4. Article 4 § 3 of the Convention lists activities which do not constitute "forced or compulsory labour" within the meaning of Article 4 § 2. Thus, paragraph 3 serves as an aid for the interpretation of paragraph 2. The four subparagraphs of paragraph 3, notwithstanding their diversity, are grounded on the governing ideas of the general interest, social solidarity and what is normal in the ordinary course of affairs (see Van der Mussele, cited above, § 38; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B; Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII and Stummer, cited above, § 120).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 31950/06

  The Court has further noted the specific structure of Article 4. Article 4 § 3 of the Convention lists activities which do not constitute "forced or compulsory labour" within the meaning of Article 4 § 2. Thus, paragraph 3 serves as an aid for the interpretation of paragraph 2. The four subparagraphs of paragraph 3, notwithstanding their diversity, are grounded on the governing ideas of the general interest, social solidarity and what is normal in the ordinary course of affairs (see Van der Mussele, cited above, § 38; Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B; Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 44, ECHR 2006-VIII and Stummer, cited above, § 120).

• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 7442/08

  ADIGÜZEL c. TURQUIE

  La Cour renvoie à sa jurisprudence pertinente en matière de l'article 4 de la Convention (Van der Mussele, précité, §§ 32, 34 et 38, Karlheinz Schmidt, précité, Siliadin c. France, no 73316/01, §§ 112, 115 et 116, CEDH 2005VII, Zarb Adami, précité, § 44, Rantsev c. Chypre et Russie, no 25965/04, § 283, CEDH 2010 (extraits), Steindel c. Allemagne (déc.), no 29878/07, 14 septembre 2010, Stummer c. Autriche [GC], no 37452/02, §§ 116 à 118 et 120, CEDH 2011, Mihal c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 31303/08, § 64, 28 juin 2011, Bucha c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 43259/07, § 39, 20 septembre 2011, Graziani-Weiss c. Autriche, no 31950/06, §§ 36 à 38, 18 octobre 2011, et Chitos c. Grèce, no 51637/12, § 79, CEDH 2015 (extraits)).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 34655/14

  RADI AND GHERGHINA v. ROMANIA

  The Court has taken that definition as a starting-point for its interpretation of Article 4 § 2 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2005-VII; Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, §§ 117-118, 7 July 2011; Graziani-Weiss v. Austria, no. 31950/06, § 36, 18 October 2011).