Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08, 961/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHAMTOKHU ET AKSENCHIK c. RUSSIE
Non-violation de l'article 14+5 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté;Article 5-1 - Privation de liberté);Non-violation de l'article 14+5 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 - ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA
No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- sputniknews.com (Pressemeldung, 24.01.2017)
Lebenslange Haft in Russland nur für Männer ist keine Diskriminierung
- juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)
Frauen dürfen in Russland von lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe ausgenommen werden
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia
[20.04.2016]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 60367/08
- EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 60367/08
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08, 961/11
Wird zitiert von ... (41) Zitiert selbst (46)
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
65731/01 and 65900/01, § 40, ECHR 2005-X; and Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 78, Series A no. 94).This could easily be justified in the light of the Court's case-law, which is based on the idea that "very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference in treatment based exclusively on the ground of sex as compatible with the Convention" (see Van Raalte v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1997, § 39, in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I Petrovic v. Austria, 27 March 1998, § 37, Reports 1998-II; and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2006-VI).
65731/01 and 65900/01, § 52, ECHR 2005-X; and Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos.
65731/01 and 65900/01, ECHR 2006-VI.
- EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
This applies even more to situations in which a member State voluntarily guarantees a right which is not a Convention right itself, as any preference for extension of benefits should in principle fall within the competence of the domestic authorities, who are, as often emphasised by the Court, better placed than an international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, § 120, ECHR 2015).This is not to say that prison conditions for male lifers in Russia are acceptable from the viewpoint of the Convention (forceful criticism of these conditions has been expressed in the Khoroshenko judgment and the concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque and myself annexed to it (see Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04), nor that it is not desirable to abolish life sentences for male prisoners as well.
24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, 18 March 2014, and Khoroshenko v. Russia, [GC], no. 41418/04, ECHR 2015.
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 130/10
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
The Court reiterates that matters of appropriate sentencing fall in principle outside the scope of the Convention, it not being its role to decide, for example, what is the appropriate term of detention applicable to a particular offence (see Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, § 105, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI; T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, § 117, 16 December 1999; and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 118, ECHR 1999-IX, and, by contrast, as regards a manifestly disproportionate punishment for ill-treatment, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts); Derman v. Turkey, no. 21789/02, § 28, 31 May 2011).The right to human dignity has had an impact in that life imprisonment is now considered acceptable in Europe only under certain conditions (see Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, § 113, and Murray v. Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 101).
- EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
See Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 32, Series A no. 31.See Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 42, Series A no. 31.
- EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
The Court has on numerous occasions indicated that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and of the ideas prevailing in democratic States today (see Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26; Kress v. France [GC], no. 39594/98, § 70, ECHR 2001-VI; and Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.See Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, § 31, Series A no. 26.
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
- EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90
BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
In that vein the Grand Chamber has emphasised more particularly "that the advancement of the equality of the sexes is today a major goal in the member States of the Council of Europe and that very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference in treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263).See, in particular, Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263.
- EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89
SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
In that vein the Grand Chamber has emphasised more particularly "that the advancement of the equality of the sexes is today a major goal in the member States of the Council of Europe and that very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference in treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263).See, in particular, Burghartz v. Switzerland, 22 February 1994, § 27, Series A no. 280-B, and Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263.
- EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 25762/07
Schwizgebel ./. Schweiz: Diskriminierung eines Adoptionsbewerbers wegen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
The Court notes that "sex" is explicitly mentioned in Article 14 as a prohibited ground of discrimination and that it has previously accepted that "age" is also a concept covered by this provision (see Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Nelson, cited above).See Schwizgebel v. Switzerland, no. 25762/07, § 85, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and Solis v. Peru, Human Rights Committee (HRC), Communication No. 1016/2001, UN Doc.
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 24919/94
GERGER v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
Similarly, again in the context of the execution of a criminal sentence, in a case concerning eligibility of a life prisoner for parole, the Court considered that "although Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention does not guarantee a right to automatic parole, an issue may arise under that provision taken together with Article 14 of the Convention if a settled sentencing policy affects individuals in a discriminatory manner" (see Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 69, 8 July 1999; see also, to the same effect, Clift, cited above, § 42).In its reasoning in the present judgment (see paragraph 56) the Court relied on Gerger v. Turkey [GC], no. 24919/94, § 69, 8 July 1999, a case concerning eligibility of a life prisoner for parole, in which the Court considered that "although Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention does not guarantee a right to automatic parole, an issue may arise under that provision taken together with Article 14 of the Convention if a settled sentencing policy affects individuals in a discriminatory manner" (see also, to the same effect, Clift, cited above, § 42).
- EGMR, 25.09.2014 - 19010/07
X ET AUTRES CONTRE L'AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 61498/08
AL-SAADOON ET MUFDHI CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 46295/99
STAFFORD ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI
- RG, 20.02.1938 - I 59/38
1. Kann im Patentnichtigkeitsstreit der Patentinhaber Berufung einlegen, wenn das …
- EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88
- EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03
NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14
A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95
Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
- EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71
Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland
- EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
- EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03
Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen, Pedersen u.a. ./. Dänemark
- EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09
AUSTIN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97
FRETTE v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02
CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
- EGMR, 07.06.2001 - 39594/98
- EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24069/03
25.000 EUR Entschädigung für PKK-Führer Öcalan wegen unmenschlicher Behandlung
- EGMR - 43441/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 32036/10
BUTKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.02.2011 - 6268/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.09.2001 - 36797/97
G.M.B. AND K.M. v. SWITZERLAND
- EKMR, 13.10.1986 - 11077/84
NELSON c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EKMR, 08.01.1992 - 15397/89
P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EuGH, 05.03.2009 - C-388/07
DER GERICHTSHOF STELLT KLAR, UNTER WELCHEN VORAUSSETZUNGEN DIE MITGLIEDSTAATEN …
- EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94
Mord an James Bulger
- EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94
Mord an James Bulger
- EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99
OKKALI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 63716/00
SAWONIUK contre le ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 73593/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 21789/02
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 17484/15
Sex ist auch für Frauen über 50 wichtig
Accordingly, for Article 14 to become applicable, it is enough that the facts of the case fall "within the ambit" of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see, among many other authorities, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 53, 24 January 2017, and Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 47, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).The notion of discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 also includes cases where a person or group is treated, without proper justification, less favourably than another, even though the more favourable treatment is not called for by the Convention (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, ECHR 2017).
- EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09
"Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …
Fortunately, the Court has already supported the State's duty to protect the right to family and maternity of vulnerable female prisoners in a lifesentence case (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, ECHR 2017). - EGMR, 19.12.2018 - 20452/14
MOLLA SALI c. GRÈCE
იმიáƒ.áƒáƒ—ვიáƒ., რáƒáƒ› áƒáƒáƒ›áƒáƒ˜áƒáƒ áƒáƒ. მე-14 მუხლთáƒáƒœ შეáƒ.áƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ›áƒ˜áƒ.áƒáƒ‘იáƒ. áƒ.áƒáƒ™áƒ˜áƒ—ხი, áƒáƒ“გილი უნდრჰქáƒáƒœáƒ“ეáƒ. გáƒáƒœáƒ.ხვáƒáƒ•áƒ”ბáƒáƒ. იმ პირებიáƒ. მáƒáƒžáƒ§áƒ áƒáƒ‘áƒáƒ¨áƒ˜, რáƒáƒ›áƒšáƒ”ბიც áƒáƒœáƒáƒšáƒáƒ’იურáƒáƒœ რელევáƒáƒœáƒ¢áƒ£áƒ áƒáƒ“ მáƒ.გáƒáƒ•áƒ. ვითáƒáƒ ებáƒáƒ¨áƒ˜ იმყáƒáƒ¤áƒ”ბიáƒáƒœ (იხ., მრáƒáƒ•áƒáƒš áƒ.ხვრმნიშვნელáƒáƒ•áƒáƒœ გáƒáƒ“áƒáƒáƒ§áƒ•áƒ”ტილებáƒáƒ. შáƒáƒ იáƒ., კáƒáƒœáƒ.ტáƒáƒœáƒ¢áƒ˜áƒœ მáƒáƒ კინი რუáƒ.ეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒáƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒ“ეგ (Konstantin Markin v. Russia) [დიდი პáƒáƒšáƒáƒ¢áƒ], N 30078/06, § 125, ECHR 2012; X დრáƒ.ხვები áƒáƒ•áƒ.ტრიიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒáƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒ“ეგ (X and Others v. Austria) [დიდი პáƒáƒšáƒáƒ¢áƒ], N 19010/07, § 98, ECHR 2013; ხáƒáƒ›áƒ¢áƒáƒ®áƒ£ დრáƒáƒ™áƒ.ენჩიკი რუáƒ.ეთიáƒ. áƒáƒ˜áƒœáƒáƒáƒ¦áƒ›áƒ“ეგ (Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia) [დიდი პáƒáƒšáƒáƒ¢áƒ], NN 60367/08 დრ961/11, § 64, 24 იáƒáƒœáƒ•áƒáƒ ი 2017 დრáƒ-ემáƒáƒ— დáƒáƒ.áƒáƒ®áƒ”ლებული ფáƒáƒ‘იáƒáƒœáƒ˜ (Fábián), § 113).
- EGMR, 25.06.2024 - 20958/14
EGMR zur Lage auf der Krim: Russland begeht schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen
60367/08 and 961/11, § 64, 24 January 2017). - EGMR, 20.10.2020 - 78630/12
B. c. SUISSE
Il n'a pas d'existence indépendante, puisqu'il vaut uniquement pour « la jouissance des droits et libertés'qu'elles garantissent (voir, parmi d'autres, Sahin c. Allemagne [GC], no 30943/96, § 85, CEDH 2003-VIII, Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, § 53, 24 janvier 2017, et Fábián c. Hongrie [GC], no 78117/13, § 112, 5 septembre 2017). - EGMR, 13.06.2024 - 32312/23
KARSAI v. HUNGARY
As to the burden of proof in relation to Article 14 of the Convention, the Court has held that once the applicant has demonstrated a difference in treatment, it is for the Government to show that the difference was justified (see Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, §§ 53, 64 and 65, 24 January 2017, and Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, §§ 88-90 and 92, 24 May 2016). - EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 23040/13
RYSER c. SUISSE
Il n'a pas d'existence indépendante, puisqu'il vaut uniquement pour « la jouissance des droits et libertés'qu'elles garantissent (voir, parmi d'autres, Sahin c. Allemagne [GC], no 30943/96, § 85, CEDH 2003-VIII, Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, § 53, 24 janvier 2017, et Fábián c. Hongrie [GC], no 78117/13, § 112, 5 septembre 2017). - EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
S.S. v. SLOVENIA
[1] For the general impact of the (non-)existence of a relevant consensus between Contracting States concerning a particular legal matter on use of the margin of appreciation doctrine, see, mutatis mutandis, the Grand Chamber's recent practice in: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, no. 60367/08 and 961/11, 24 January 2017, §§ 79, 85; Naït-Liman v. Switzerland, no. 41357/07, 15 March 2018, §§ 181-203; and Correia de Matos v. Portugal, no.56402/12, 4 April 2018, § 137. In the case of Bayatan v. Armenia (no. 23459/03, 7 July 2011, § 102), the Grand Chamber states that in defining the meaning of terms and notions in the text of the Convention, the Court can and must take into account elements of international law other than the Convention and the interpretation of such elements by competent organs.[8] Once this link between the Court's case-law on treating vulnerable categories with special attention and increased protection and the broad consensus under the CRPD on special and necessary measures or modifications for persons with disabilities is established, it is of secondary importance whether this can be legally defined as an aspect of "positive discrimination" towards disabled persons in the sense that the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States, without an objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (see, mutatis mutandis, Case relating to certain aspects of laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, 23 July 1968, Series A, No. 6, § 10; Thlimmenos v. Greece, no. 34369/97, 6 April 2000, § 44; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, 24 February 2002, § 82; Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, 17 February 2011, § 48; Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, no. 60367/08 and 961/11, [GC], 24 January 2017, §§ 64 and 82).
- EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 40792/10
Russland wegen Diskriminierung von Homosexuellen verurteilt - Russland wegen …
La Cour rappelle à cet égard que toute interprétation des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention doit se concilier avec son esprit général qui vise à sauvegarder et promouvoir les idéaux et valeurs d'une « société démocratique'(Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, série A no 161, Svinarenko et Slyadnev, précité, et Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, 24 janvier 2017). - EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 40209/20
KOILOVA ET BABULKOVA c. BULGARIE
La Cour rappelle à cet égard que toute interprétation des droits et libertés garantis par la Convention doit se concilier avec son esprit général qui vise à sauvegarder et promouvoir les idéaux et valeurs d'une « société démocratique'(Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, série A no 161, Svinarenko et Slyadnev c. Russie [GC], nos 32541/08 et 43441/08, CEDH 2014 (extraits), et Khamtokhu et Aksenchik c. Russie [GC], nos 60367/08 et 961/11, 24 janvier 2017). - EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16
ASSOCIATION ACCEPT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- OLG Brandenburg, 20.04.2021 - 1 AR 14/20
Erklärung der Auslieferung eines Verfolgten an die Russische Föderation zum …
- EGMR, 18.02.2020 - 3891/19
CÎNÈšA v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 78117/13
FÁBIÁN v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 41261/17
VOLODINA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.08.2023 - 43651/22
KOVACEVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 27.06.2023 - 11643/20
ISPIRYAN v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 56928/19
VALIULLINA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA and 7 other applications
- EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 30100/18
BARALIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
- EGMR, 20.06.2024 - 13968/22
SPI? ÁK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
- EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19
P.C. v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 5854/18
TULOKAS v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 23077/19
ARNAR HELGI LARUSSON v. ICELAND
- EGMR, 11.03.2025 - 14368/22
ALNEEL v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 25373/16
E.T. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 14925/18
COLOMBIER c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 14431/06
ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.10.2023 - 26104/19
STOTT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.06.2023 - 75135/14
MAYMULAKHIN AND MARKIV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 57101/10
RIBAC v. SLOVENIA and 1 application
- EGMR, 24.05.2022 - 19839/21
L.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 11438/15
YAZBEK v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
- EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 34952/07
BEECKMAN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR - 17469/24 (anhängig)
GEGA v. ALBANIA
- EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 64531/16
KONOVALOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 36642/14
M.A. v. HUNGARY
- EGMR, 22.09.2020 - 68320/13
SPOLJAR AND DJECJI VRTIC PCELICE v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 06.06.2019 - 34345/10
BELYAEV v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications
- EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 66299/12
DEACONU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 62964/14
MINTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 17670/21
ATHLETICS SOUTH AFRICA v. SWITZERLAND
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 60367/08, 961/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 60367/08
- EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 60367/08, 961/11
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".