AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands
|
|
- Debra Crawford
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No /93 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 22 February 1995, the following members being present: Mr. H. DANELIUS, President Mrs. G.H. THUNE MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON S. TRECHSEL J.-C. SOYER H.G. SCHERMERS F. MARTINEZ L. LOUCAIDES J.-C. GEUS M.A. NOWICKI I. CABRAL BARRETO J. MUCHA D. SVÁBY Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Having regard to the application introduced on 12 August 1993 by Hermanus Joannes VAN DEN DUNGEN against the Netherlands and registered on 29 October 1993 under file No /93; Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; Having deliberated; Decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Dutch national, born in 1943, and resides at Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. B.W.M. Zegers, a lawyer practising in Volendam, the Netherlands. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 29 January 1990 in summary proceedings before the President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Middelburg the S. Foundation requested an injunction against the applicant, prohibiting him from finding himself within 250 metres of the abortion clinic which is run by the S. Foundation in the town of Groede, the Netherlands. The S. Foundation alleged that the applicant, several times per month, addressed visitors and employees, as they walked from the car park to the clinic, trying to persuade them not to have an abortion by way of showing them enlarged photographs of foetal remains in combination with images of Christ, by calling abortion "child murder" and the employees "murderers", and by handing out leaflets which also contained the said photographs. According to the S. Foundation this led to visitors arriving at the clinic shocked and upset, sometimes to such an extent that treatment had to be postponed.
2 The applicant maintained that he did not hinder the visitors or employees, that he left them alone if they did not accept the leaflets handed out to them, but that in any case he had the right to try and stop women from having an abortion, which he deems a crime against humanity, as part of his right to freedom of expression. The President, holding that the applicant's conduct towards the visitors, who would in any case be in a very vulnerable state of mind already, was impermissible and caused damage to the S. Foundation, as it had to offer extra assistance to its patients, granted the injunction for a period of six months. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague, arguing that the injunction violated his rights to freedom of expression, freedom to manifest his religion and freedom to liberty of movement. On 24 October 1991 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the President of the Regional Court. Following a hearing on 20 December 1992, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation on 26 February In the Netherlands abortion is legal if carried out in accordance with the conditions laid down in the Termination of Pregnancy Act (Wet Afbreking Zwangerschap) and the Royal Decree on Termination of Pregnancy (Besluit Afbreking Zwangerschap) based on this Act. According to Article 1401 of the Netherlands Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek) victims of a tort are entitled to damages, but may also ask for a declaratory judgment or an injunction by which the defendant is either forbidden or ordered to do something. Under Article 289 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering) the President of the Regional Court, in cases requiring immediate measures, is competent to grant such injunctions in summary proceedings (kort geding). COMPLAINTS The applicant submits that the injunction prohibiting him from handing out leaflets and showing photographs, which aim at expressing the applicant's religiously inspired opinions about abortion, in the vicinity of an abortion clinic violates his rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and expression. He invokes Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. The applicant further complains of a breach of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, as he is of the opinion that the restriction upon his right to liberty of movement cannot be justified. The applicant finally maintains that, as it is normal in the Netherlands to be addressed and handed leaflets by all kinds of people without the Dutch authorities acting against this, he is discriminated against contrary to Article 14 of the Convention. THE LAW 1. The applicant complains that the injunction against him prevents him from manifesting his beliefs, invoking Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention which reads, so far as relevant: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance...." The Commission recalls that Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds,
3 i.e. the area which is sometimes called the forum internum. In addition, it protects acts which are intimately linked to these attitudes, such as acts of worship or devotion which are aspects of the practice of a religion or belief in a generally recognised form (cf. No /84, Dec , D.R. 46 p. 200). However, in protecting this personal sphere, Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention does not always guarantee the right to behave in the public sphere in a way which is dictated by such a belief. The Commission has constantly held that the term 'practice' in Article 9 para. 1 (Art. 9-1) does not cover each act which is motivated or influenced by a religion or belief (cf. No /84 supra; No /83, Dec , D.R. 37 p. 142). The Commission notes that the applicant's activities were primarily aimed at persuading women not to have an abortion. The Commission considers that the activities at issue do not constitute the expression of a belief within the meaning of Article 9 para. 1 (Art. 9-1) of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly illfounded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. 2. The applicant also complains that the injunction against him constitutes an interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, and that such interference is not justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention, so far as relevant, provides: "1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,... for the protection of the... rights of others..." In the present case the applicant was prohibited from addressing people and handing out leaflets in the direct vicinity of the abortion clinic. The Commission considers that such a measure constitutes an interference with the applicant's right to freedom of expression under Article 10 para. 1 (Art. 10-1). The Commission must next consider whether this interference was justified under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. In the first place the Commission considers that the interference was prescribed by law, in particular by Article 289 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 1401 of the Civil Code, authorising the President of the Regional Court in summary proceedings to grant injunctions by which the defendant is either forbidden or ordered to do something. The interference was aimed at the protection of the rights of others, namely of the S. Foundation and of the visitors to and the employees of the clinic run by the S. Foundation. The Commission finds therefore that the interference had a legitimate aim under Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention. The Commission must finally examine whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society.
4 The Commission recalls that the word "necessary" in para. 2 of Article 10 (Art. 10) implies the existence of a "pressing social need" and that the Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Lingens judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 103, para. 39). The Commission further recalls that this margin of appreciation is, however, subject to a European supervision embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court. In particular, it must be determined whether in the light of the case as a whole the interference complained of is "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued" and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 217, para. 50). The Commission notes that in the present case the injunction against the applicant was granted for a limited duration and a specified, limited area. The Commission notes in particular that the injunction was not aimed at depriving the applicant of his rights under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention but merely at restricting them in order to protect the rights of others. Taking these factors together, the Commission finds that the interference was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued in that it can reasonably be considered "necessary" for the protection of the rights of others. It follows that this part of the application must also be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. 3. The applicant further alleges a violation of his right to liberty of movement within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (P4-2) to the Convention, which provides, so far as relevant: "1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall... have the right to liberty of movement No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society... for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others...." The Commission finds that the interference with the applicant's right to liberty of movement was justified under para. 3 of this provision on the same grounds as stated in respect of the applicant's complaint under Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention. The Commission concludes therefore that this part of the application must likewise be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. 4. Finally, the applicant complains of discrimination in respect of his right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression and liberty of movement in that the Dutch authorities do not stop other persons from addressing people in the street and handing out leaflets. He invokes Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (Art P4-2) to the Convention. Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention reads as follows: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
5 The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention has no independent existence, but plays an important role by supplementing the other provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. Article 14 (Art. 14) safeguards individuals, placed in similar situations, from discrimination in the enjoyment of the rights set forth in those other provisions. The Commission has found above that there has been no interference with the applicant's right to manifest his belief within the meaning of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention. It considers that no question of discrimination arises in this respect. The Commission furthermore notes that the applicant, when complaining of discrimination as regards his freedom of expression and liberty of movement, does not suggest that activities similar to those carried out by him in the vicinity of the abortion clinic, would not be subject to an injunction if carried out by other people. He only refers to the distribution of leaflets in unspecified circumstances by other kinds of people. He has thus failed to show with sufficient clarity in what respect in his opinion the interference complained of amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 14 (Art. 14). The Commission therefore finds no appearance of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 9 or 10 (Art ) of the Convention or Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (Art. 14+P4-2). It follows that this part of the application must again be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Commission by a majority DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE. Secretary to the Second Chamber (K. ROGGE) President of the Second Chamber (H. DANELIUS)
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 33029/96 by Bruno POLI against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 21 October 1998, the following members being
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 17392/90 by W.M. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1992, the following members being present: MM. S. TRECHSEL,
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16400/90 by H.S. and H.Y. against the Netherlands The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 May 1990, the following members being present:
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by M.T.J. against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 19011/91 by M.T.J. against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 31 March 1993, the following members being present:
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28288/95 by Flemming PETERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following members
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 2 December 1986, the following members being present: MM. C. A. NØRGAARD E. BUSUTTIL G. JÖRUNDSSON G. TENEKIDES S.
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28268/95 by Delbar BOLOURI against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 19 October 1995, the following members being present:
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 12945/87 by Constantinos HATJIANASTASIOU against Greece The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 April 1990, the following members being
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28858/95 by George GANCHEV against Bulgaria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 25 November 1996, the following members being present:
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /91. Wiktor Olesen. against. Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 18068/91 Wiktor Olesen against Denmark REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 18 October 1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras.
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /94. Józef Michal Janowski. against. Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 25716/94 Józef Michal Janowski against Poland REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION
More informationFISCHER v. AUSTRIA. The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members being present:
FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16922/90 by Josef FISCHER against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 8 September 1992, the following members
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 29188/95 by Hans Kristian PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 16 April 1998, the following
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against Finland
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 31414/96 by Andrei KARASSEV and family against Finland The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 April 1998, the following members being
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members being present:
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 16152/90 by Ahmed LAMGUINDAZ against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 17 February 1992, the following members
More informationMr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 5 May 1986, the following members being present: MM. J. A. FROWEIN, Acting President C. A. NØRGAARD G. SPERDUTI M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES G. JÖRUNDSSON
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER. Application No /92. Terra Woningen B.V. against. the Netherlands REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND CHAMBER Application No. 20641/92 Terra Woningen B.V. against the Netherlands REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 5 April 1995) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationDECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark
1 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. by Kjeld ANDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 May 1988, the following members
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by KÖNKÄMÄ and 38 other Saami villages against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 27033/95 by KÖNKÄMÄ and 38 other Saami villages against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 25 November 1996, the following members
More informationMcCANN, FARRELL AND SAVAGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 18984/91 by Margaret McCANN, Daniel FARRELL and John SAVAGE against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 3 September
More informationFRIEDL_v._AUSTRIA[1] Page. I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) A. The application (paras. 2-4) B. The proceedings (paras. 5-9)...
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 15225/89 Ludwig Friedl against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 19 May 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)......................
More informationPICHON AND SAJOUS v. FRANCE DECISION 1
PICHON AND SAJOUS v. FRANCE DECISION 1 [TRANSLATION]... THE FACTS The applicants [Mr Bruno Pichon and Mrs Marie-Line Sajous] are French nationals, who were born in 1955 and 1949 respectively and live in
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /91 by David BRIND and Others against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 18714/91 by David BRIND and Others against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 May 1994 the following members being
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /92. Zoltán Szücs. against. Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 3 September 1996)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 20602/92 Zoltán Szücs against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 3 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-15)......................1
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /94. Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN. against. Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 23959/94 Margit, Roswitha and Melanie JANSSEN against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 31 May 1999) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /86 by Verein "Kontakt-Information-Therapie" (KIT) and Siegfried HAGEN against Austria
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 11921/86 by Verein "Kontakt-Information-Therapie" (KIT) and Siegfried HAGEN against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12 October
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 31138/96 by S.Ö., A.K., Ar.K.
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /92 by Kristina KRAMELIUS against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 21062/92 by Kristina KRAMELIUS against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 17 January 1996, the following members
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 41226/98 by I.M. against the
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF SORGUÇ v. TURKEY. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT
SECOND SECTION CASE OF SORGUÇ v. TURKEY (Application no. 17089/03) JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 21 January 2010 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court STRASBOURG 23 June 2009 FINAL 23/09/2009 This
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13057/87 by Carmel DEMICOLI against Malta The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 15 March 1989, the following members being present: MM.
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /91. Anders Fredin. against. Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. (adopted on 9 February 1993)
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18928/91 Anders Fredin against Sweden REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 9 February 1993) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14)..................1
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY. Application No /84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY Application No. 10825/84 by R. and W. HOWARD against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 July 1987, the following members being present:
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No /95 by Bart A. MIDDELBURG, Sytze VAN DER ZEE and HET PAROOL B.V. against the etherlands
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28202/95 by Bart A. MIDDELBURG, Sytze VAN DER ZEE and HET PAROOL B.V. against the etherlands The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
More informationReligious discrimination in the workplace: the case of Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom
Religious discrimination in the workplace: the case of Eweida and Others v the United Kingdom Standard Note: SN06533 Last updated: 28 May 2013 Author: Section Doug Pyper Business & Transport Section This
More informationHUDOC: List of Keywords Article by Article
The legal issues dealt with in each case are summarized in a list of Keywords, chosen from a thesaurus of terms taken (in most cases) directly from the text of the European Convention on Human Rights and
More informationAttachment 1 to Submission of the National Whistleblowers Center to the UN Universal Periodic Review
Attachment 1 to Submission of the National Whistleblowers Center to the UN Universal Periodic Review 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth
More informationSeite 1 von 10 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 24208/94 by Karlheinz DEMEL against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BISERICA ADEVĂRAT ORTODOXĂ DIN MOLDOVA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (Application
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /95 by John William DICK against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 26249/95 by John William DICK against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 28 February 1996, the following
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA. (Application no /12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 15 May 2018
THIRD SECTION CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA (Application no. 32248/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 15 May 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /96. Ian Faulkner. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 30308/96 Ian Faulkner against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 1 December 1998) 30308/96 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 76682/01 by P4 RADIO HELE NORGE
More informationJUDGMENT OF JOINED CASES 35 AND 36/82
JUDGMENT OF 27. 10. 1982 JOINED CASES 35 AND 36/82 require proceedings to be instituted on the substance of the case even before the courts or tribunals of another jurisdictional system and that during
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF TÜM HABER SEN AND ÇINAR v. TURKEY (Application no. 28602/95) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationThe Human Rights Committee established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE S. W. M. Brooks v. the Netherlands Communication No. 172/1984 9 April 1987 VIEWS Submitted by: S. W. M. Brooks (represented by Marie-Emmie Diepstraten) Alleged victim: the author
More informationThe European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 2 July 1997, the following members being present:
L.F. v. Ireland AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28154/95 by LF against Ireland The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 2 July 1997, the following members
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /94 by Kevin MCDAID and Others against the United Kingdom
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 25681/94 by Kevin MCDAID and Others against the United Kingdom The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 April 1996, the following members
More informationApplication Nos /88 and 14235/88 OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD. and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS. against IRELAND
Application Nos. 14234/88 and 14235/88 OPEN DOOR COUNSELLING LTD. and DUBLIN WELL WOMAN CENTRE LTD. AND OTHERS against IRELAND REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 7 March 1991) TABLE OF CONTENTS page
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /94. Richard Waite and Terry Kennedy. against. Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 26083/94 Richard Waite and Terry Kennedy against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 2 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras.
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 51016/11 Orde van Register Adviseurs Nederland OVRAN and others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 April 2015
More informationDECISION. Date of adoption: 6 June Case No. 12/07. Teki BOKSHI and Zeqir BUJUPI. against UNMIK
DECISION Date of adoption: 6 June 2008 Case No. 12/07 Teki BOKSHI and Zeqir BUJUPI against UNMIK The Human Right Advisory Panel sitting on 4 June 2008 With the following members present: Mr. Marek NOWICKI,
More informationFIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 35178/97 by Hubert ANKARCRONA
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 21727/08 by Angelique POST against
More informationEuropean Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 Council of Europe Treaty Series, No. 5 Note on the text The text of the Convention is presented as amended by the provisions of
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /85 by the Ingrid Jordebo FOUNDATION of Christian Schools and Ingrid JORDEBO against Sweden
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 11533/85 by the Ingrid Jordebo FOUNDATION of Christian Schools and Ingrid JORDEBO against Sweden The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
More informationE. Recapitulation (paras )... 12
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 18892/91 Wilhelm Putz against Austria REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 11 October 1994) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17)......................1
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF GEORGIEVA AND MUKAREVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no. 3413/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF GEORGIEVA AND MUKAREVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 3413/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA. (Application no /05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015
THIRD SECTION CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA (Application no. 19940/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 13 November 2014 FINAL 13/02/2015 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 36773/97 by Herwig NACHTMANN against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 9 September 1998, the following members
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 January 2012 FINAL 10/04/2012
THIRD SECTION CASE OF TSATURYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 37821/03) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 January 2012 FINAL 10/04/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the Convention. It may be
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 13445/87 by Flemming PEDERSEN against Denmark The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 October 1991, the following members being present:
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 43768/17 HAN AARTS B.V. and others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 October 2017 as a Committee composed
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF VOJNITY v. HUNGARY. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 12 February 2013
SECOND SECTION CASE OF VOJNITY v. HUNGARY (Application no. 29617/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 12 February 2013 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION. CASE OF OAO PLODOVAYA KOMPANIYA v. RUSSIA
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION CASE OF OAO PLODOVAYA KOMPANIYA v. RUSSIA (Application no. 1641/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationIn the case of Pentidis and Others v. Greece,
In the case of Pentidis and Others v. Greece, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
More informationI- The draft Declaration on Medically-Indicated Abortion violates the independence of physicians and their freedom of conscience
April 20 th, 2018 Dear WMA Members, The Workgroup on Therapeutic Abortion considered some changes in the WMA s ethical policy statements, through a Declaration on Medically-Indicated Abortion revising
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF application no. 34311/96 by Adolf HUBNER against
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 17064/06 by Boruch SHUB against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 June 2009 as a Chamber composed
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION. CASE OF OOO RUSATOMMET v. RUSSIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS SECOND SECTION CASE OF OOO RUSATOMMET v. RUSSIA (Application no. 61651/00) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16153/03 by Vladimir LAZAREV
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF YONKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF YONKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 17241/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 16472/04 by Ruslan Anatoliyovych ULYANOV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010
More informationIn the van der Leer case*,
In the van der Leer case*, * Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 12/1988/156/210. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS (JERSEY) LAW 2000
HUMAN RIGHTS (JERSEY) LAW 2000 Revised Edition Showing the law as at 1 January 2007 This is a revised edition of the law Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 Arrangement HUMAN RIGHTS (JERSEY) LAW 2000 Arrangement
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 11 January 2018
FIRST SECTION CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 7205/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 11 January 2018 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA JUDGMENT 1
More informationFIRST SECTION. CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 7 April 2016
FIRST SECTION CASE OF SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 18275/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 April 2016 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationAS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF. Application No /94 by Gerd HONSIK against Austria
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 25062/94 by Gerd HONSIK against Austria The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 18 October 1995, the following members being
More informationCHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
26.10.2012 Official Journal of the European Union C 326/391 CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2012/C 326/02) C 326/392 Official Journal of the European Union 26.10.2012 PREAMBLE..........................................................
More informationEuropean Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights European Convention on Human Rights as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14 supplemented by Protocols Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 12 and 13 The text of the Convention is presented
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no /07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 10 February 2015
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 15452/07) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 February 2015 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND. (Application no /06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 8 December 2011
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF T.H. v. IRELAND (Application no. 37868/06) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 8 December 2011 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. T.H. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the
More informationSECOND SECTION. CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY. (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 25 November 2014
SECOND SECTION CASE OF MAIORANO AND SERAFINI v. ITALY (Application no. 997/05) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 25 November 2014 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MAIORANO AND SERAFINI
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS. The Universal Declaration
HUMAN RIGHTS The Universal Declaration 1948 U N C O M M I S S I O N E R F O R H U M A N R I G H T S The power of the Universal Declaration is the power of ideas to change the world. It inspires us to continue
More informationFIFTH SECTION. CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA. (Application no /01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 2 September 2010
FIFTH SECTION CASE OF ROSEN PETKOV v. BULGARIA (Application no. 65417/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 2 September 2010 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention.
More informationSECOND SECTION DECISION
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 68611/14 Jolita GUBAVIČIENĖ against Lithuania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2015 as a Committee composed of: Paul
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Application No /93. James Hamill. against. the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Application No. 21656/93 James Hamill against the United Kingdom REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 2 December 1997) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-18)
More informationFIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
FIFTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 18215/06 by GREENPEACE E.V. and others against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 May 2009 as a
More informationCollective agreements
XIVth Meeting of European Labour Court Judges 4 September 2006 Cour de cassation Paris Collective agreements National reporter: Judge Taco van Peijpe President, European Association of Labour Court Judges
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION. CASE OF POPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS THIRD SECTION CASE OF POPPE v. THE NETHERLANDS (Application no. 32271/04) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA. (Application no.
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIFTH SECTION CASE OF NALBANTOVA v. BULGARIA (Application no. 38106/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27
More informationTHIRD SECTION. CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA. (Application no. 5065/06)
THIRD SECTION CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN AND SHIROYAN v. ARMENIA (Application no. 5065/06) JUDGMENT (merits) STRASBOURG 20 July 2010 FINAL 20/10/2010 This judgment has become final under Article 44 2 of the
More informationThe rights of denominational schools in Irish and international law
The rights of denominational schools in Irish and international law Summary: 1. It is increasingly asserted that denominational schools are in breach of both national and international law in that they
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 21563/08 N.F. against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 14 January 2014 as a Chamber composed of: Josep Casadevall, President,
More informationCOUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOURTH SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 35424/97 by Seljvije DELJIJAJ
More informationSeite 1 von 10 EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST CHAMBER Application No. 25629/94 H.F. K-F. against Germany REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 10 September 1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION
More informationTHIRD SECTION DECISION
THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 14927/12 and 30415/12 István FEHÉR against Slovakia and Erzsébet DOLNÍK against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 May 2013
More informationFOURTH SECTION DECISION
FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 498/10 Piotr CIOK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2012 as a Chamber composed of: Päivi Hirvelä, President,
More informationFOURTH SECTION. CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA. (Application no /11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 16 May 2017
FOURTH SECTION CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA (Application no. 78375/11) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 May 2017 This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 2 of the Convention. It
More informationUNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit
More information