Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOCKUTE v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Change religion or belief;Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MOCKUTÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09
• EGMR, 05.02.2020 - 66490/09

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (21)

• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  Even so, the Court has already held that, in a situation like this, it remains free to itself evaluate the facts in the light of all the material at its disposal (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Alexandridis, cited above, § 34; also see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, § 64, 4 October 2016; Idalov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 41858/08, § 99 in fine, 13 December 2016).

  However, most of the judgments cited had been taken in the context of Article 3 of the Convention, where the Court held (see, for example, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336) that its "scrutiny must be particularly thorough" and that its "vigilance must be heightened when dealing with rights such as those set forth in Article 3..., which prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  The Government also drew an analogy with the Court's case-law under Article 3 of the Convention, where it had held that it was for the medical authorities to decide on the therapeutic methods to be used to preserve the physical and mental health of patients (they relied on Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244).

  Furthermore, the Court has acknowledged in its case-law that, in principle, it is for the domestic medical authorities to decide, on the basis of the recognised rules of medical science, on the therapeutic methods to be used to preserve the physical and mental health of patients who are incapable of deciding for themselves, and for whom they are therefore responsible (see, inter alia, Dvorácek v. Czech Republic, no. 12927/13, § 88, 6 November 2014, and Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no. 244).

• EGMR, 05.10.2006 - 72881/01

  BRANCHE DE MOSCOU DE L'ARMEE DU SALUT c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  The Court has also held that the State enjoys only a limited margin of appreciation and must advance convincing and compelling reasons to justify any interference with the freedom of individual conscience (see Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia, no. 72881/01, § 76, ECHR 2006-XI; also see, mutatis mutandis, Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, § 123, ECHR 2011).

  In Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia (no. 72881/01, § 76, ECHR 2006-XI) the statement of the "limited" margin was made only in relation to the rule of freedom of association and in particular in the context of Article 11. That can be deduced from the references to Gorzelik and Others v. Poland ([GC], no. 44158/98, § 95, ECHR 2004-I), Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece (10 July 1998, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) and Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-IX) which were all Article 11 cases.

 
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 62649/10

  Türkei verurteilt - Aleviten diskriminiert

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  The Court has no reason to hold otherwise, all the more so since pursuant to the Supreme Administrative Court's decision the Ojas Meditation Center had been registered as a religious community (see paragraph 56 above; also see Izzettin Dogan and Others v. Turkey [GC], no. 62649/10, § 68, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  As a general rule, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them (see, for example, Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 169, ECHR 2015, and Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 61, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  Even if the conditions for this approach were fulfilled, in assessing evidence the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 88, 23 February 2012, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 02.10.2001 - 29225/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  In Moscow Branch of the Salvation Army v. Russia (no. 72881/01, § 76, ECHR 2006-XI) the statement of the "limited" margin was made only in relation to the rule of freedom of association and in particular in the context of Article 11. That can be deduced from the references to Gorzelik and Others v. Poland ([GC], no. 44158/98, § 95, ECHR 2004-I), Sidiropoulos and Others v. Greece (10 July 1998, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV) and Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 84, ECHR 2001-IX) which were all Article 11 cases.
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  The Court points out that in principle it is not its task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts (see Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v. Turkey, no. 13320/02, § 165, 2 June 2015, and Kudrevicius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 169, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  Even so, the Court has already held that, in a situation like this, it remains free to itself evaluate the facts in the light of all the material at its disposal (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Alexandridis, cited above, § 34; also see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, § 64, 4 October 2016; Idalov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 41858/08, § 99 in fine, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 41858/08

  IDALOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 66490/09

  Even so, the Court has already held that, in a situation like this, it remains free to itself evaluate the facts in the light of all the material at its disposal (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Alexandridis, cited above, § 34; also see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, § 64, 4 October 2016; Idalov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 41858/08, § 99 in fine, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 44774/98

  LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14307/88

  KOKKINAKIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94

  BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 20511/03

  I v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 57375/08

  Abtreibungsverbot in Polen: Lebensschützer und der "Fall Agata"
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42788/06

  SURIKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08

  DONOHOE v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 23373/03

  BIRIUK v. LITHUANIA