Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARRILLO v. ITALY

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARRILLO c. ITALIE

  Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 35-1 - Epuisement des voies de recours internes;Délai de six mois);Exception préliminaire rejetée (Article 34 - Victime);Partiellement irrecevable;Non-violation de l'article 8 - Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PARRILLO v. ITALY - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six-month period);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• aerztezeitung.de (Pressemeldung, 27.08.2015)

  Umgang mit Embryonen strikt geregelt

Besprechungen u.ä.

• jean-monnet-saar.eu (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Keine Freigabe kryokonservierter Embryonen zur Stammzellenforschung

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 28.05.2013 - 46470/11
• EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11
• EGMR - 46470/11 (anhängig)

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2016, 3705

Wird zitiert von ... (52)Neu Zitiert selbst (28)

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  Further, in the case of S.A.S. v. France ([GC], no. 43835/11, § 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), which concerned the statutory ban on wearing clothing designed to conceal one's face in public places, the Court observed that the applicant's situation was similar to that of the applicants in Dudgeon and Norris, in which it had found a continuing interference with the exercise of the rights protected by Article 8 of the Convention.

  29381/09 and 32684/09, § 54, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and S.A.S. v.France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 110, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and these are not the only cases on the subject.

  Unfortunately, in S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 113, ECHR 2014 (extracts) it was held that "to be compatible with the Convention, a limitation of this freedom must, in particular, pursue an aim that can be linked to one of those listed in [Article 9 § 2].

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  Referring to Vo v. France ([GC], no. 53924/00, § 82, ECHR 2004-VIII), it pointed out, lastly, that the Court allowed States to determine in their domestic legal order "when the right to life begins" and that it afforded them a wide margin of appreciation in this area (A, B and C v. Ireland, cited above, § 237).

  In this context, it is crucially important to note that the Grand Chamber did not cite paragraph 56 from Evans v. the United Kingdom (cited above) in which the Court had stated that "the embryos created by the applicant and J. [did] not have a right to life within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention", nor the Chamber judgment of 7 March 2006 in that case, § 46, nor even the classic statement of principle in Vo v. France ([GC], no. 53924/00, § 82, ECHR 2004).

  See, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 75 and 80, ECHR 2004-VIII; Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-V; Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, no. 6959/75, Commission Report of 12 July 1977, Decisions and Reports (DR) 10, p. 100; H. v. Norway, no. 17004/90, Commission decision of 19 May 1992, DR 73, p. 155.

• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  The Court has already acknowledged that where an interference with the right relied on by an applicant emanates directly from legislation, the very maintenance in force of the impugned legislation may constitute a continuing interference with the right in question (see, for example, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 38, Series A no. 142, in which the applicants, who were homosexuals, complained that laws making homosexual practices criminal offences infringed their right to respect for their private life).

  The majority cite the cases of Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45; Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 38, Series A no. 142; Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.

 
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  The Court has already acknowledged that where an interference with the right relied on by an applicant emanates directly from legislation, the very maintenance in force of the impugned legislation may constitute a continuing interference with the right in question (see, for example, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 38, Series A no. 142, in which the applicants, who were homosexuals, complained that laws making homosexual practices criminal offences infringed their right to respect for their private life).

  The majority cite the cases of Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 41, Series A no. 45; Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 38, Series A no. 142; Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  The applicant affirmed at the outset that according to the Court's case-law "private life" was a broad concept (she referred to Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III and Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 71, ECHR 2007-I).

  The applicant's right to self-determination reflects her right to personal autonomy and freedom of choice (see S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 80, ECHR 2011; McDonald v. the United Kingdom, no. 4241/12, §§ 46-47, 20 May 2014; and Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III).

• EuGH, 18.10.2011 - C-34/10

  Ein Verfahren, das durch die Entnahme von Stammzellen, die aus einem menschlichen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 18 October 2011 (C-34/10 Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV).

  In October 2011 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) provided further clarification on the use of human embryos for scientific purposes in the case of Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV (C-34/10).

• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 46967/07

  C.G.I.L. ET COFFERATI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  Accordingly, such an application cannot be a remedy whose exhaustion is required under the Convention (see, among other authorities, Brozicek v. Italy, no. 10964/84, 19 December 1989, § 34, Series A no. 167; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 42, ECHR 1999-V; C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, § 48, 24 February 2009; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 75, 17 September 2009; and M.C. and Others v. Italy, no. 5376/11, § 47, 3 September 2013).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 31443/96

  BRONIOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  In each case the issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant title to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II, Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I, and Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 129, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10964/84

  BROZICEK v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  Accordingly, such an application cannot be a remedy whose exhaustion is required under the Convention (see, among other authorities, Brozicek v. Italy, no. 10964/84, 19 December 1989, § 34, Series A no. 167; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 42, ECHR 1999-V; C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, § 48, 24 February 2009; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 75, 17 September 2009; and M.C. and Others v. Italy, no. 5376/11, § 47, 3 September 2013).
• EKMR, 19.05.1992 - 17004/90

  H. c. NORVEGE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11

  See, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 75 and 80, ECHR 2004-VIII; Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, ECHR 2007-I; Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, ECHR 2007-V; Brüggemann and Scheuten v. Germany, no. 6959/75, Commission Report of 12 July 1977, Decisions and Reports (DR) 10, p. 100; H. v. Norway, no. 17004/90, Commission decision of 19 May 1992, DR 73, p. 155.
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 5376/11

  M.C. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93

  IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31107/96

  IATRIDIS c. GRÈCE
• EKMR, 18.07.1986 - 10785/84

  W. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02

  GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 77703/01

  SVYATO-MYKHAYLIVSKA PARAFIYA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.07.2002 - 39794/98

  GRATZINGER ET GRATZINGEROVA c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE
• EKMR, 19.05.1976 - 6959/75

  BRÜGGEMANN AND SCHEUTEN v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 30273/07

  LEANDRO DA SILVA c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

• EGMR, 08.04.2021 - 47621/13

  Impfpflicht in Tschechien: Impflicht für Kinder ist keine …

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008; S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 91, ECHR 2011; Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, § 212, 17 April 2012; Hanzelkovi v. the Czech Republic, no. 43643/10, § 72, 11 December 2014; Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 168, ECHR 2015; Zaiet v. Romania, no. 44958/05, § 50, 24 March 2015; Med?¾lis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, §§ 89, 121, 27 June 2017; and Pavel Shishkov v. Russia, no. 78754/13, §§ 95, 97, 2 March 2021).
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09

  "Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …

  However, the Court has already respected the margin of appreciation when a State (being in the minority) protected the right to life of the embryo in the case of Parrillo v. Italy ([GC], no. 46470/11, 27 August 2015) or traditional values in the case of Lautsi and Others v. Italy ([GC], no. 30814/06, 18 March 2011).
• EGMR, 19.12.2018 - 20452/14

  MOLLA SALI v. GREECE

  Furthermore, the concept of "possession" in the first sentence of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as "property rights", and thus as "possessions" for the purposes of this provision (see Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, CEDH 2015 and the references therein).

 
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 14065/15

  LACATUS c. SUISSE

  À cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de dire que lorsqu'un aspect particulièrement important de l'existence (ou de l'identité) d'un individu se trouve en jeu, la marge laissée à l'État est d'ordinaire restreinte (Parrillo c. Italie [GC], no 46470/11, § 169, CEDH 2015, avec les références qui s'y trouvent citées).
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10

  Ein Recht auf Scheidung? Pole scheitert mit Scheidungswunsch

  36. Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015, § 34 of my opinion.
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  It is also highly debatable whether there is a Convention right of access to pre-natal screening (see Costa and Pavan v. Italy, no. 54270/10, 28 August 2012, and R.R. v. Poland, no. 27617/04, ECHR 2011 (extracts); see also my opinion joined to the Parrillo v. Italy judgment ([GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015)).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 53080/13

  BÉLÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY

  The concept of "possession" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is not limited to ownership of material goods and is independent from the formal classification in domestic law: certain other rights and interests constituting assets can also be regarded as "property rights", and thus as "possessions" for the purposes of this provision (see Iatridis v. Greece [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 1999-II; Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I; and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).

  v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 63, ECHR 2007-I; Depalle v. France [GC], no. 34044/02, § 62, ECHR 2010; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], no. 38433/09, § 171, ECHR 2012; Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 49, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 211, ECHR 2015).

• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND

  In the case of Parrillo v. Italy ([GC], no. 46470/11, ECHR 2015) it appeared that only five member States protected the embryo's right to life, and the Court based its judgment on the margin of appreciation.
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 22296/20

  BARET ET CABALLERO c. FRANCE

  Devant le Conseil d'État, invoquant l'article 8 de la Convention et l'arrêt Parrillo c. Italie ([GC], no 46470/11, CEDH 2015), elle souligna que sa demande concernait les embryons du couple, comprenant son patrimoine génétique.

  En outre, la possibilité pour une personne d'exercer un choix conscient et réfléchi quant au sort à réserver à ses embryons touche un aspect intime de sa vie personnelle et relève à ce titre de son droit à l'autodétermination, et donc de sa vie privée (Parrillo c. Italie [GC], no 46470/11, § 159, CEDH 2015).

• EGMR, 06.11.2017 - 43494/09

  GARIB c. PAYS-BAS

  It falls to the Court to examine carefully the arguments taken into consideration during the legislative process and leading to the choices that have been made by the legislature and to determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the competing interests of the State and those directly affected by those legislative choices (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, Animal Defenders International v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48876/08, § 108, ECHR 2013 (extracts); S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 97, ECHR 2011, and Parrillo v. Italy [GC], no. 46470/11, § 170, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 36345/16

  L.B. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 69444/17

  ROTH c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 20.01.2020 - 201/17

  MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17

  SOLSKA AND RYBICKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.04.2022 - 15136/20

  LINGS v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 27.11.2023 - 21881/20

  COMMUNAUTÉ GENEVOISE D'ACTION SYNDICALE (CGAS) v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 05.03.2019 - 19620/05

  UZAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09

  BIRZIETIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 44101/18

  PLAZZI c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.05.2021 - 54978/17

  JESSICA MARCHI c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 33295/15

  BARAHONA GUACHAMIN ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 24296/05

  ÇAVUS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 15541/20 (anhängig)

  PINDO MULLA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  DANILEVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 22254/14

  ERMÉNYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 62250/19

  JIVAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 30100/18

  BARALIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 19258/07

  DÖNMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 70035/10

  NEDESCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 37871/14

  T.P. AND A.T. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 22.09.2022 - 66191/10

  ZHURA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.05.2022 - 8709/20

  LIA v. MALTA
• EGMR, 09.06.2020 - 40597/17

  DRASKOVIC v. MONTENEGRO
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 68762/14

  ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 39322/12

  MUSTAFA AVCI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.05.2023 - 24108/15

  MESTAN c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 56367/09

  J.R. v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 34503/10

  VELKOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 15625/09

  ZOPPI c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 38337/12

  PASA BAYRAKTAR ET AYDINKAYA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 15920/16

  PETRACHE ET TRANCA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 43885/13

  MIRCEA POP c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 39468/09

  BELERI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 3427/13

  HADZIMEJLIC AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 16.05.2023 - 4188/21

  A.M. AND OTHERS v. POLAND
• EGMR, 08.12.2022 - 14889/19

  PEJRILOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 39942/13

  CHORBOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 34206/13

  IVANOIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 43480/17

  FIZGEJER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 36419/13

  S.C. PAULUS S.R.L. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 71403/12

  KANSU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 21320/15

  A.M. AND A.K. v. HUNGARY