Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KURTULMUS c. TURQUIE
Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2 MRK
Irrecevable (französisch) - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KURTULMUS v. TURKEY
Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 7, Art. 7 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 2 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (18) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 15.02.2001 - 42393/98
Verbot des Tragens eines islamischen Kopftuches während des Unterrichtens an …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01
In this context, in Leyla Sahin (§ 111) and Dahlab v. Switzerland ((dec.) no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V), the Court found that in a democratic society the State was entitled to place restrictions on the wearing of the Islamic headscarf if it was incompatible with the pursued aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and public order. - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 35237/97
ADOUD ET BOSONI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 73936/01
DE JORIO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01
In conclusion, having regard to the proceedings as a whole (see, mutatis mutandis, De Jorio v. Italy (dec.), no. 73936/01, 6 March 2003 and, mutatis mutandis, Meftah and Others v. France [GC], nos.
- EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98
LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01
In the light of the applicant's submissions, the Court will proceed on the basis that the rules on dress for public servants constituted interference with her right to manifest her religion, as she considered that Muslim women have a religious duty to wear the Islamic headscarf (see, to the same effect, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey [GC], no. 44774/98, § 78, ECHR 2005-XI). - EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88
KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01
That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 31, Series A no. 260-A, and Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94
BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01
That freedom entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion (see Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25 May 1993, § 31, Series A no. 260-A, and Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 26.09.1995 - 17851/91
Radikalenerlaß
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01
It therefore falls to the Court, having regard to the circumstances of each case, to determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the fundamental right of the individual to freedom of religion and the legitimate interest of a democratic State in ensuring that its public service properly furthers the purposes enumerated in Article 9 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323, and also, Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 43, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 25390/94
REKVÉNYI c. HONGRIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 65500/01
It therefore falls to the Court, having regard to the circumstances of each case, to determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the fundamental right of the individual to freedom of religion and the legitimate interest of a democratic State in ensuring that its public service properly furthers the purposes enumerated in Article 9 § 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Vogt v. Germany, 26 September 1995, § 53, Series A no. 323, and also, Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, § 43, ECHR 1999-III).
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
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). - BVerfG, 27.01.2015 - 1 BvR 471/10
Ein pauschales Kopftuchverbot für Lehrkräfte in öffentlichen Schulen ist mit der …
Der Gerichtshof hat im Zusammenhang mit Bekleidungsvorschriften für Lehrkräfte, namentlich dem Verbot des Tragens des islamischen Kopftuchs, den Vertragsstaaten im Blick auf das in dem betreffenden Land geltende weltanschaulich-religiöse Neutralitätsprinzip und den Schutz der negativen Religionsfreiheit Dritter, die er der Aufrechterhaltung der öffentlichen Sicherheit und der öffentlichen Ordnung zugeordnet hat (Art. 9 Abs. 2 EMRK), einen erheblichen Spielraum eingeräumt (…vgl. EGMR, Dahlab v. Schweiz, Entscheidung vom 15. Februar 2001, Nr. 42393/98, NJW 2001, S. 2871 ; EGMR , Sahin v. Türkei…, Urteil vom 10. November 2005, Nr. 44774/98, NVwZ 2006, S. 1389 , § 107 ff.; EGMR, Kurtulmus v. Turkey, Entscheidung vom 24. Januar 2006, Nr. 65500/01; zu Grenzen des Spielraums vgl. EGMR, Eweida u.a. v. UK, Urteil vom 15. Januar 2013, Nr. 48420/10 u.a., NJW 2014, S.1935 ). - EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 64846/11
Kopftuch tragen zählt nicht zu den Menschenrechten
Il se réfère à cet égard à la jurisprudence de la Cour relative aux membres de la fonction publique quant à leur obligation de discrétion et à leur tenue vestimentaire (Vogt c. Allemagne, 26 septembre 1995, § 53, série A no 323 ; Kurtulmus c. Turquie (déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-II).Il rappelle qu"« une application moins stricte d"une règle existante en fonction d"un contexte donné ne la prive pas de ses justifications et ne la rend pas juridiquement non contraignante'(Kurtulmus c. Turquie (déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-II).
Voir, selon le cas, Dahlab c. Suisse (déc.), no 42393/98, CEDH 2001-V, Kurtulmus c. Turquie (déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-II, ou Karaduman c. Turquie, (déc.), no 41296/04, 3 avril 2007.2.
- Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 13.07.2016 - C-188/15
Nach Auffassung von Generalanwältin Sharpston stellt eine Unternehmenspraxis, …
37 - Vgl. z. B. Entscheidungen vom 15. Februar 2001, Dahlab/Schweiz (CE:ECHR:2001:0215DEC004239398), und vom 24. Januar 2006, Kurtulmu?Ÿ/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2006:0124DEC006550001).42 - Entscheidung vom 24. Januar 2006, Kurtulmu?Ÿ/Türkei (CE:ECHR:2006:0124DEC006550001).
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57792/15
Kopfbedeckung im Gericht rechtmäßig
It should be noted at the outset that the present case is not about the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace (in this regard, see Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II; Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.40. As mentioned above (see paragraph 26 above), the present case must be distinguished from cases concerning the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace, notably by public officials who may be put under a duty of discretion, neutrality and impartiality, including a duty not to wear such symbols and clothing while exercising official authority (see Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001, concerning the dismissal of a judge because she had, among other things, proselytised and prayed during court hearings; Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V, concerning the prohibition for a primaryschool teacher to wear a headscarf while teaching; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II, concerning the prohibition for a university professor to wear a headscarf while teaching; Eweida and Others, cited above, § 105, concerning the dismissal of a registrar of births, deaths and marriages as a result of her refusal to conduct samesex partnerships; and Ebrahimian v. France, no. 64846/11, ECHR 2015, concerning the prohibition for a social worker in the psychiatric department of a public hospital to wear a headscarf at work).
- EGMR, 23.01.2023 - 61435/19
Verstoß gegen Meinungsfreiheit: Geschichten über gleichgeschlechtliche …
205. The Court has also acknowledged, in a variety of contexts, that children, in view of their age, are impressionable and more easily influenced than persons of an older age (see Dahlab v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 42393/98, ECHR 2001-V; Kurtulmu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006II;. - EGMR, 23.02.2010 - 41135/98
AHMET ARSLAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Il en résulte que la jurisprudence de la Cour relative aux fonctionnaires (par exemple, mutatis mutandis, Vogt c. Allemagne, 26 septembre 1995, § 53, série A no 323, et Rekvényi c. Hongrie [GC], no 25390/94, § 43, CEDH 1999-III) ou en particulier aux enseignants (Dahlab c. Suisse (déc.), no 42393/98, CEDH 2001-V, Kurtulmus c. Turquie (déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-II) ne peut s'appliquer en l'espèce. - EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 20999/04
ÖZPINAR c. TURQUIE
A cet égard, la Cour rappelle avoir déjà considéré comme légitime de soumettre les membres de la fonction publique ou les magistrats, en raison de leur statut, à une obligation de réserve au regard de l'article 10 de la Convention (Vogt, précité, § 26) ou de discrétion dans l'expression publique de leurs convictions religieuses, au regard de l'article 9 (Kurtulmus c. Turquie (déc.), no 65500/01, CEDH 2006-II). - EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 49304/09
BIRZIETIS v. LITHUANIA
An example here is the ban on Islamic burkas in all public spaces (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) or the ban on Islamic headscarves in certain public institutions (see Sevgi Kurtulmus v. Turkey (dec., no. 65500/01, 2016 January 24). - EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 75414/10
KURBAN v. TURKEY
For instance, to mention just one, such a position would call into question the Court's settled case-law in the context of civil service/public employment law, where the Court has consistently held that a public servant's removal from office and the resultant loss of future income does not affect his or her "possessions" and thus does not engage the application of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Nazif Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 69912/01, 27 May 2004; Kurtulmus v. Turkey (dec.), no. 65500/01, ECHR 2006-II; and Buterlevici?«te v. Lithuania, no. 42139/08, § 70, 12 January 2016). - EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 18650/05
SODAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 30.09.2008 - 37829/05
MELEK SIMA YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 19728/02
AKGÜL c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 41296/04
KARADUMAN ET TANDOGAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 37829/05
YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 9907/02
ARAÇ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 7906/05
BOZ c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 03.04.2007 - 41296/04
KARADUMAN c. TURQUIE