Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAUN JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination (Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (24)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  The Court further reiterates that whereas Article 14 of the Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of "the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention", Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 introduces a general prohibition of discrimination (see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 53, ECHR 2009; Baralija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 30100/18, § 45, 29 October 2019; and Negovanović and Others, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  At the outset, the Court reiterates that as the question of applicability is an issue of its jurisdiction ratione materiae, the general rule of dealing with applications should be respected and the relevant analysis should be carried out at the admissibility stage unless there is a particular reason to join this question to the merits (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  Article 6 § 1, however, cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I, and Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 81, ECHR 2004-I).

• EGMR, 30.11.1987 - 8950/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  The Court reiterates that the guarantees enshrined in Article 6 § 1 include the obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions (see H. v. Belgium, 30 November 1987, § 53, Series A no. 127-B).
• EGMR, 09.12.1994 - 18064/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  That is why the question whether a court has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, deriving from Article 6 of the Convention, can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A, and Hiro Balani v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 27, Series A no. 303-B).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 49270/11

  SAVICKIS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  However, only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or "status", are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14. Furthermore, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14. A difference of treatment based on a prohibited ground is discriminatory if it has no objective or reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see Savickis and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 49270/11, § 181, 9 June 2022, with further references).
• EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00

  SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  Lastly, even if it may be sufficient for a higher court to dismiss an appeal by referring only to the legal provisions providing for that procedure, assuming that there had been a prior detailed judgment on the issues and/or a hearing before a lower court (see, for example and in the context of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; see also García Ruiz, cited above; § 26, and Hansen, cited above, § 74), this, in the Court's opinion, was obviously not the situation in the present case.
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 26219/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  A reasoned decision shows the parties that their case has truly been heard, and thus contributes to a greater acceptance of the adjudication (see Magnin v. France (dec.), no. 26219/08, § 29, 10 May 2012).
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 61638/00

  Igors Dmitrijevs ./. Lettland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  Lastly, the Convention organs have repeatedly found, quite apart from the use of official or co-official languages, that the Convention did not guarantee linguistic freedom as such, or, specifically, the right to use the language of one's choice in an individual's contacts with public institutions or to receive a reply in this language (see, for example, Igors Dmitrijevs v. Latvia, no. 61638/00, § 85, 30 November 2006, with further references).
• RG, 12.02.1910 - V 72/09

  Öffentlicher Glaube des Grundbuchs.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 41394/15

  58/04, 85/05, 85/05, 115/05, 49/07, 122/08, 20/09, 72/09 AND 76/10).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• OLG Hamm, 28.07.2011 - 6 WF 100/11

  Einigungsgebühr bei Verzicht auf die Durchführung des Versorgungsausgleichs
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 44920/09

  [ENG]
• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 29.03.2010 - 7 D 96/09

  Private Interessen als Anlass für Bebauungsplan
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …
• EGMR, 29.06.2006 - 27250/02

  Menschrechtskonvention: Überlange Verfahrensdauer, Zivilrechtsstreit
• OLG Hamburg, 22.04.2010 - 12 WF 75/10

  Verfahrenskostenhilfe für ein einstweiliges Anordnungsverfahren zum …
• KG, 18.04.2011 - 16 UF 52/11

  Einstweiliges Anordnungsverfahren in Sorgerechtssachen: Beschwerdefrist bei …
• EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 33139/13

  NAPOTNIK v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND
• EGMR, 14.04.2020 - 75229/10

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 29907/16

  NEGOVANOVIC v. SERBIA and 3 other applications
• KAG Mainz, 16.01.2014 - M 18/13

  Eingruppierung; Zustimmungsersetzung

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.06.2025 - 20641/20

  SELIMI v. SERBIA and 16 other applications

  Those shortcomings are therefore of no relevance in the context of the Government's abuse allegations raised under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 50 and 51, 7 February 2023).
• EGMR, 19.11.2024 - 51774/17

  TSIOLIS v. GREECE

  In the Court's view, the Supreme Administrative Court did not clarify in any practical terms why it considered that the Court's judgments did not concern the same legal matter as that concerned by the instant case, and this is even more true in view of the requirement that the national courts are obliged to examine with particular care and rigour cases involving the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols (see, for instance, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, § 108, 7 February 2023, and Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, § 96, 28 June 2007).
• EGMR, 08.06.2023 - 18326/19

  ALONSO SAURA v. SPAIN

  The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and the background... Irrespective of this scope, however, the final decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court itself" (see Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, § 77, 7 February 2023).

• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 10772/19

  COROVIC v. SERBIA

  The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case in question (see, for example, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 100-01, 7 February 2023, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 53193/21

  LORENZO BRAGADO v. SPAIN and 5 other applications

  In view of the foregoing and given both the evident general importance of the matter, the apparent novelty or rareness of the legal issues raised before the Constitutional Court, and the particular circumstances of the case and with due regard to the aims of legal certainty and the proper administration of justice it was reasonable to expect that any rejection of the amparo appeal for the sole non-compliance with the statutory time-limit would need to be based on adequate reasoning (see, mutatis mutandis, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, § 110, 7 February 2023).
• EGMR, 08.07.2025 - 65087/19

  CANGI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  For this reason the requirement to provide adequate reasons for dismissing a complaint may also apply to constitutional courts regard being had to the object and purpose of the proceedings before it (see Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 108-110, 7 February 2023; Lorenzo Bragado and Others v. Spain, nos. 53193/21 and 5 others, § 145, 22 June 2023; and Meli and Swinkels Family Brewers N.V. v. Albania, nos. 41373/21 and 48801/21, §§ 70-76, 16 July 2024).
• EGMR - 1935/23 (anhängig)

  IMREK v. TÜRKIYE

  Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in the context of the individual application he had lodged with the Constitutional Court? In particular, did the Constitutional Court's decision of 29 July 2022 contain adequate reasoning with respect to the applicant's main complaint concerning the taking and retention of his personal data (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I, and Paun Jovanovic v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 100-101 and 108-109, 7 February 2023)?.
• EGMR - 16831/24 (anhängig)

  TEN HOEVE v. SWEDEN and 1 other application

  In particular, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons for their decisions (i) on the merits (see, for example, García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I, and Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 100-101, 7 February 2023, with further references); (ii) on the question of leave to appeal (see, for example, Kukkonen v. Finland (no. 2), no. 47628/06, § 24, 13 January 2009, and Hansen v. Norway, no. 15319/09, §§ 71-83, 2 October 2014, with further references); and (iii) on the requests to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU (see, for example, Harisch v. Germany, no. 50053/16, §§ 33-43, 11 April 2019; Sanofi Pasteur v. France, no. 25137/16, §§ 68-81, 13 February 2020; and Gondert v. Germany, no. 34701/21, §§ 35-47, 16 December 2025, with further references)?.
• EGMR, 17.02.2026 - 30749/22

  ÐAKOVIC v. SERBIA

  It follows that the Government's submissions in this respect are of no relevance to the assessment of any alleged abuse of the right of individual application (see, mutatis mutandis, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, § 50, 7 February 2023).
• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 42520/17

  SHAPKAROSKI v. NORTH MACEDONIA and 1 other application

  This obligation cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see, among many others, Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, no. 41394/15, §§ 100-101, 7 February 2023).
• EGMR, 11.06.2024 - 4597/23

  SMALHOUT v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 8430/16

  JURGILEVICA AND POLAKOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR - 34816/23 (anhängig)

  ČANOVIĆ v. SERBIA
• EGMR - 14004/25 (anhängig)

  JOVANOVIĆ v. SERBIA
• EGMR - 12405/25 (anhängig)

  SOKOLOVIĆ v. SERBIA
• EGMR - 6470/25 (anhängig)

  JOSIFOVSKI v. SERBIA
• EGMR - 19457/22 (anhängig)

  ?žEN v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR - 3139/25 (anhängig)

  ZOVKO v. CROATIA
• EGMR - 28600/25 (anhängig)

  DUBROVAČKA BISKUPIJA v. CROATIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 30.04.2024 - 37630/19

  BO? NJACKI v. SERBIA