1. Bearbeitung Texterfassung:  Jana Schmid Formatierung:  Jana Schmid Revision:  A. Tschentscher 2. Abruf & Rang Abrufen:  RTF-Version RTF mit Seiten RTF mit Linien Druckversion Druck mit Seiten Rspr.:   0% (128) Lit.:   0% (92) Suche:   0% (516) Rang:   0% (656) 3. Zitiert durch: 4. Zitiert selbst: 5. Besprechungen:

6. Zitiert in Literatur: [nicht verfügbar] 7. Markierte Gliederung: I. The Circumstances of the Case II. Relevant Domestic Law and Practice A. The Law of 11 October 2010 "prohibiting the concealment of one's face in public places" 1. Legislative history ... (a) Report "on the wearing of the full-face veil on national terr ... (b) Opinion of the National Advisory Commission on Human Rights " ... (c) Study by the Conseil d'Etat on "the possible legal grounds fo ... (d) Resolution of the National Assembly "on attachment to respect ... (e) Bill before Parliament ... 2. Relevant provisions of Law no. 2010-1192 ... B. Decision of the Constitutional Council of 7 October 2010 C. Prime Minister's Circular of 2 March 2011 D. Other circulars E. Judgment of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation of 5 March 2013 III. Relevant International Law and Practice A. Resolution 1743 (2010) and Recommendation 1927 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Viewpoint of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe 1. Resolution 1743 (2010) and Recommendation 1927 (2010) of the P ... 2. Viewpoint of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council  ... B. The United Nations Human Rights Committee IV. The Situation in other European States A. Belgian Law of 1 June 2011 and judgment of the Belgian Constitutional Court of 6 December 2012 B. Judgment of the Spanish Supreme Court of 6 February 2013 C. Opinion of the Netherlands Council of State, 28 November 2011 I. The Government's Preliminary Objections A. Whether the applicant is a "victim" B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies C. Abuse of the right of individual application II. Alleged Violation of Article 3 of the Convention, taken separately and together with Article 14 III. Alleged Violation of Article 11 of the Convention, taken separately and together with Article 14 IV. Alleged Violation of Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention, taken separately and together with Article 14 A. Admissibility B. Merits 1. The parties' submissions ... (a) The applicant ... (b) The Government ... 2. Arguments of third-party interveners ... (a) The Belgian Government ... (b) The non-governmental organisation Amnesty International ... (c) The non-governmental organisation ARTICLE 19 ... (d) Human Rights Centre of Ghent University ... (e) The non-governmental organisation Liberty ... (f) The non-governmental organisation Open Society Justice Initia ... 3. The Court's assessment ... (a) Alleged violation of Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention ... (i) Whether there has been a "limitation" or an "interference" ... (ii) Whether the measure is "prescribed by law" ... (iii) Whether there is a legitimate aim ... (iv) Whether the measure is necessary in a democratic society ... alpha) General principles concerning Article 9 of the Convention ... beta) Application of those principles in previous cases ... gamma) Application of those principles to the present case ... (b) Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken toget ... (c) Alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention, taken sepa ... A. Sacrificing of individual rights to abstract principles B. No legitimate aim under the Convention C. Proportionality of a blanket ban on the full-face veil 1. Different approaches to pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedne ... 2. Disproportionate interference ... (a) Margin of appreciation ... (b) Consequences for the women concerned ... (c) Less restrictive measures ... D. Conclusion