Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MUHAMMAD v. SPAIN
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (9) Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00
TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The Court reiterates that racial discrimination is a particularly egregious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction (see, in the context of Article 14, Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII, and Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos.It is only once an applicant has shown a difference in treatment that the burden of proof shifts to the Government to show that it was justified (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 177, and Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 57, ECHR 2005-XII).
The present judgment rightly emphasises the importance of combating racial discrimination, which "is a particularly invidious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction" (see Timishev v. Russia, nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII).
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The Human Rights Centre of Ghent University referred to the case-law of the Court and argued not only that in certain cases the burden of proof should be reversed, but also that States had a positive procedural obligation to investigate allegations of ethnic profiling (citing Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII).The two cases which the Chamber of the Third Section has decided on the same day - Muhammad v. Spain (no. 34085/17) and Basu v. Germany (no. 215/19) - followed the Court's case-law as set out in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 157, ECHR 2005-VII), Stoica v. Romania (no. 42722/02 § 126, 4 March 2008), and the more recent cases quoted in both judgments delivered today (see Basu, cited above, §§ 38-41, and paragraphs 91-95 of the present judgment).
In short, and applying the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires an in-depth and effective investigation of all incidents that may have a racist, xenophobic or other discriminatory motive (ECHR, [B.S.] v. Spain, no. 47159/08, 24 July 2012, or Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, [ECHR 2005-VII], all lines of inquiry have been exhausted to try to clarify the facts without it having been possible to obtain sufficient incriminating evidence to be able to bring criminal charges against the persons against whom the complaint was directed." (ibid.).
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 47159/08
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The respondent State's obligation to investigate possible racist overtones to a violent act is an obligation to use best endeavours and not absolute (see B.S. v. Spain, no. 47159/08, § 58, 24 July 2012).In short, and applying the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which requires an in-depth and effective investigation of all incidents that may have a racist, xenophobic or other discriminatory motive (ECHR, [B.S.] v. Spain, no. 47159/08, 24 July 2012, or Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, [ECHR 2005-VII], all lines of inquiry have been exhausted to try to clarify the facts without it having been possible to obtain sufficient incriminating evidence to be able to bring criminal charges against the persons against whom the complaint was directed." (ibid.).
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 215/19
Diskriminierung: Deutschland hat Racial-Profiling-Vorwurf nicht genug geprüft
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The two cases which the Chamber of the Third Section has decided on the same day - Muhammad v. Spain (no. 34085/17) and Basu v. Germany (no. 215/19) - followed the Court's case-law as set out in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 157, ECHR 2005-VII), Stoica v. Romania (no. 42722/02 § 126, 4 March 2008), and the more recent cases quoted in both judgments delivered today (see Basu, cited above, §§ 38-41, and paragraphs 91-95 of the present judgment). - EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
Such a measure therefore falls within the scope of Article 8. It is not necessary to decide whether a simple check of a person's identification papers also falls within the scope of Article 8. For Article 14 to be applicable it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the wider ambit of private life (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 § 129, ECHR 2012; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
27996/06 and 34836/06, § 43, ECHR 2009). - EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97
FRETTE v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
Such a measure therefore falls within the scope of Article 8. It is not necessary to decide whether a simple check of a person's identification papers also falls within the scope of Article 8. For Article 14 to be applicable it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the wider ambit of private life (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 § 129, ECHR 2012; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97
Thlimmenos ./. Griechenland
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
Such a measure therefore falls within the scope of Article 8. It is not necessary to decide whether a simple check of a person's identification papers also falls within the scope of Article 8. For Article 14 to be applicable it is enough for the facts of the case to fall within the wider ambit of private life (see Konstantin Markin v. Russia, no. 30078/06 § 129, ECHR 2012; Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 40, ECHR 2000-IV; E.B. v. France, no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 31, ECHR 2002-I). - EGMR, 12.04.2016 - 64602/12
R.B. v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The Court observes at the outset that the context in the present case is significantly different from that in R.B. v. Hungary, no. 64602/12, 12 April 2016, where the acts at issue formed part of a generally hostile attitude against the Roma community in a municipality during a period in which rallies had been organised against them, and the perpetrators (who in any event were private individuals and not State agents) were never identified. - EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02
STOICA v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 34085/17
The two cases which the Chamber of the Third Section has decided on the same day - Muhammad v. Spain (no. 34085/17) and Basu v. Germany (no. 215/19) - followed the Court's case-law as set out in Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria ([GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 157, ECHR 2005-VII), Stoica v. Romania (no. 42722/02 § 126, 4 March 2008), and the more recent cases quoted in both judgments delivered today (see Basu, cited above, §§ 38-41, and paragraphs 91-95 of the present judgment). - EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13
SABALIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 24329/02
SOARE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 29555/13
F.O. v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 9077/18
Y AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11
Denisov v. Ukraine
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13
KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 3289/10
BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01
- EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 59648/13
VIG v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 18.10.2022 - 215/19
Diskriminierung: Deutschland hat Racial-Profiling-Vorwurf nicht genug geprüft
I also wish to recognise the groundbreaking nature of this judgment as, together with the judgment in Muhammad v. Spain (no. 34085/17, 18 October 2022, not final) adopted on the same day, these are the first cases in which the Court has considered allegations of racial profiling in police identity checks in a public space. - EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 43868/18
WA BAILE c. SUISSE
Rn. 60 La Cour précise que dans le cadre de la requête no 43868/18, le requérant invoque à l'appui d'une violation de l'article 14 non seulement l'article 8, mais aussi l'article 6 § 2. Toutefois, à la lumière des arrêts rendus récemment en matière de profilage racial (Basu c. Allemagne, no 215/19, 18 octobre 2022, et Muhammad c. Espagne, no 34085/17, 18 octobre 2022), la Cour estime opportun d'examiner le présent grief sous l'angle de l'article 14 combiné seulement avec l'article 8 de la Convention. - EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 1298/19
A.P. AND R.P. v. POLAND
These include environmental issues (see Hudorovič and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 24816/14 and 25140/14, §§ 112-15, 10 March 2020), reputation and image issues (see Vučina v. Croatia (dec.), no. 58955/13, §§ 42-51, 24 September 2019), sexual harassment (see C. v. Romania, no. 47358/20, §§ 50-54, 30 August 2022) and racial-profiling cases (see Basu v. Germany, no. 215/19, §§ 25-27, 18 October 2022; Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, §§ 49-51, 18 October 2022; and Wa Baile v. Switzerland, nos. 43868/18 and 25883/21, §§ 71 and 102, 20 February 2024).
- EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 42917/16
ZAICESCU AND FALTICINEANU v. ROMANIA and 1 other application
The authorities' responsibilities under Article 14 to secure respect without discrimination for a fundamental value may also come into play when possible racist attitudes resulting in the stigmatisation of the person concerned are at issue in the context of Article 8. It is even more so when the said attitudes are displayed not by private individuals but by State agents (see Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, § 67, 18 October 2022). - EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19
GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
Rn. 93 The Court observes that, in view of the circumstances of the present case, the domestic authorities were confronted with prima facie indications of hate speech, threats and humiliating treatment motivated by the individual applicants' religious beliefs (compare Begheluri, cited above, § 176; see also R.B. v. Hungary, §§ 83-84, Association ACCEPT and Others, § 114, Alković, § 66, Király and Dömötör, §§ 72 and 80, all cited above; see also, mutatis mutandis, Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, §§ 63-68, 18 October 2022). - EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 84543/17
DUGAN v. TURKEY
In these circumstances, the Court is unable to make an examination as to whether the domestic authorities carried out an effective investigation in this regard (compare to Basu v. Germany, no. 215/19, §§ 31-39, 18 October 2022[[1]] where the Court found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, considering that the authorities had failed to investigate sufficiently the applicant's allegations of racial profiling; see also Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, §§ 63-76, 18 October 2022[[2]]). - EGMR, 29.04.2025 - 31712/21
DERREK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Rn. 6 In a number of earlier cases concerning allegations of discrimination on the ground of race in the context of identity checks performed by the police in public, the Court has considered that once there is an arguable claim that the person concerned may have been targeted on account of racial characteristics and such acts fall within the ambit of Article 8, the authorities' duty to investigate the existence of a possible link between racist attitudes and a State agent's act is to be considered implicit in their responsibilities under Article 14 of the Convention, including when examined in conjunction with Article 8 (see Basu, cited above, § 33; Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, §§ 64-69, 18 October 2022; and Wa Baile v. Switzerland, nos. 43868/18 and 25883/21, § 91, 20 February 2024). - EGMR, 26.06.2025 - 35844/17
SEYDI ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
Rn. 58 La Cour précise que les requérants invoquent à l'appui d'une violation de l'article 14 non seulement l'article 8, mais aussi l'article 2 du Protocole no 4. Toutefois, à la lumière des arrêts rendus récemment en matière de profilage racial (Basu c. Allemagne, no 215/19, 18 octobre 2022, Muhammad c. Espagne, no 34085/17, 18 octobre 2022 et Wa Baile c. Suisse, nos 43868/18 et 25883/21, § 68, 20 février 2024), la Cour estime opportun d'examiner le présent grief sous l'angle de l'article 14 combiné seulement avec l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, mutatis mutandis, Wa Baile, précité, § 60). - EGMR - 31851/22 (anhängig)
NURISH v. NORTH MACEDONIA
b) do the circumstances of the case give rise to an obligation to investigate the alleged racial motives behind the State authorities' alleged failure to prevent the removal of the applicant's daughter? If so, has that obligation been complied with (see, mutatis mutandis, Muhammad v. Spain, no. 34085/17, §§ 63-76, 18 October 2022; and Basu v. Germany, no. 215/19, §§ 31-39, 18 October 2022)?.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".