Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 35753/03   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2005,44517
EGMR, 11.01.2005 - 35753/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,44517)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.01.2005 - 35753/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,44517)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Januar 2005 - 35753/03 (https://dejure.org/2005,44517)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,44517) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (7)

  • EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

    Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

    Thus, to address the questions of public safety, it would be sufficient to implement identity checks at highrisk locations, as in the situations examined by the Court in the cases of Phull v. France ((dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I) and El Morsli v. France ((dec.), no. 15585/06, 4 March 2008).

    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, 04.12.2008 - 27058/05

    DOGRU c. FRANCE

    Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I, 11 January 2005) or at the entrance to consulates (see.
  • EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 302/02

    JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Religious precepts that govern the conduct of adherents in private life include, for instance, regular attendance at church services, performance of certain rituals such as communion or confession, observance of religious holidays or abstention from work on specific days of the week (see Casimiro and Ferreira v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 44888/98, 27 April 1999, and Konttinen v. Finland, no. 24949/94, Commission decision of 3 December 1996), wearing specific clothes (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI, and Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, 11 January 2005), dietary restrictions (see Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 73, ECHR 2000-VII), and many others.
  • EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 26625/02

    KÖSE ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    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).
  • EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 15585/06

    EL MORSLI c. FRANCE

    In a similar case (see Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, ECHR 2005-I), the applicant, a practising Sikh, complained of a violation of his right to freedom of religion by the airport authorities who had compelled him to remove his turban during a security check.
  • EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 40010/04

    SKUGAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Such acts have been previously held to include, in particular, the reading of sacred texts (see Kuznetsov and Others, cited above), assembling with others for a service of worship (see Barankevich v. Russia, no. 10519/03, § 20, 26 July 2007), participation in the life of the community (see Supreme Holy Council of the Muslim Community v. Bulgaria, no. 39023/97, § 73, 16 December 2004), proselytising (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 36, Series A no. 260-A), wearing specific clothes (see Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI, and Phull v. France (dec.), no. 35753/03, 11 January 2005), and respecting dietary restrictions (see Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek v. France [GC], no. 27417/95, § 73, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 9907/02

    ARAÇ c. TURQUIE

    Par ailleurs, dans sa jurisprudence constante relative à l'article 9 de la Convention et à la première phrase de l'article 2 du Protocole no 1, 1a Cour a toujours dit que les modalités de la mise en Å?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-...).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht