Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PALAU-MARTINEZ c. FRANCE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1,, Art. 9, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 14+9, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 14+8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 8 pris isolément Aucune question distincte au regard des art. 6-1 9 et 14+9 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PALAU-MARTINEZ v. FRANCE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1,, Art. 9, Art. 14+8, Art. 14, Art. 14+9, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 14+8 Not necessary to examine Art. 8 alone No separate issue under Art. 6-1 9 and 14+9 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 64927/01
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 64927/01

Papierfundstellen

• FamRZ 2004, 765 (Ls.)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Referring in particular to the Court's judgment in Palau-Martinez v. France (no. 64927/01, § 43, ECHR 2003-XII), it added that States might rely on this notion to justify interference with the exercise of a Convention right only if they could show that there was concrete evidence of a breach of public order.
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 54032/18

  T.C. v. ITALY

  The scope of this margin will vary according to the circumstances, the subject matter and its background (see, among many authorities, Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, §§ 135-136, 19 December 2018, Vojnity v. Hungary, cited above, and Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 39, ECHR 2003-XII).

  In imposing this measure, the domestic courts essentially ruled in abstracto, without establishing a link between the child's living conditions with her father and her real interests (see Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 42, ECHR 2003-XII) nor the effective consequences of the applicant's religious practices on E. (see Deschomets, cited above).

• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 29617/07

  VOJNITY v. HUNGARY

  As has been well established in the Court's case-law, such a difference in treatment is discriminatory in the absence of an "objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it is not justified by a "legitimate aim" and if there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, among other authorities, Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 39, ECHR 2003-XII).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  M. AND C. v. ROMANIA

  At the same time, the Court notes that Ms M."s request to have D.C."s contact rights limited was not assessed in abstracto (see, by converse implication, Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 42-43, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 44726/09

  SVERONOPOULOS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE

  La Cour estime que le grief tiré de l'article 13 est intimement lié à celui formulé sous l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention, de sorte qu'il doit en suivre le même sort (voir Palau-Martinez c. France, (déc.), no 64927/01, 4 mars 2003).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 28129/05

  COSAC c. ROUMANIE

  Le Gouvernement considère ensuite que la présente espèce se distingue de l'affaire Palau-Martinez c. France (no 64927/01, CEDH 2003-XII) en ce que, en l'occurrence, l'appartenance religieuse du requérant n'aurait pas contribué de manière décisive au rejet de l'action visant à la réattribution de la garde de la requérante à l'intéressé.
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 37614/02

  ISMAILOVA v. RUSSIA

  Hoffmann v. Austria , judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58, § 29, and Palau-Martinez v. France , no. 64927/01, § 30, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 22613/21

  D.M. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Quant au grief tiré d'une discrimination fondée sur la race, les origines et la culture du requérant, la Cour considère que, compte tenu de la solution donnée au litige par les juridictions internes- à savoir la fixation de la résidence des enfants en alternance alternée chez les deux parents,- elle ne peut déceler, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, aucune différence de traitement (voir, a contrario, Palau-Martinez c. France, no 64927/01, CEDH 2003-XII, où la résidence principale des enfants a été fixée chez le père à cause de la religion de la mère), de sorte que l'article 14 n'est pas applicable.
• EGMR, 16.05.2006 - 31956/02

  DESCHOMETS v. FRANCE

  In that sense the present case could be distinguished from the cases of Palau-Martinez v. France (no. 64927/01, ECHR 2003-XII) and Hoffmann (cited above) since the Nîmes Court of Appeal, far from ruling in abstracto, had based its decision in this case on an analysis of the children's living conditions at their mother's home, as described in the welfare report and not disputed by the applicant.
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 14179/15

  COSTE v. POLAND

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 291-B, pp. 32-33, § 24; Camp and Bourimi, cited above, § 37; Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 30, Series A no. 255 C; and Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 31, ECHR 2003-XII).