CtEDO 14.12.2023 RO

Advisory opinion as to whether an individual may be denied authorisation to work as a security guard or officer on account of being close to or belonging to a religious movement

RESPONDENT
BEL
HOTĂRÂRE
14.12.2023
RĂSFOIEȘTE: CtEDO · 2023
DESCARCĂ: PDF · DOCX 🔒 Pro
Citează această cauză
Advisory opinion as to whether an individual may be denied authorisation to work as a security guard or officer on account of being close to or belonging to a religious movement (CtEDO, 2023)

Textul complet nu este disponibil. Consultați sursa originală.

§ Cauze similare

Grupate prin similitudine semantică

5 cauze
CtEDO 2024-02-13
0,87
CASE OF EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art 35-1) Four-month period (former six-month);(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Articl
CtEDO 2024-02-13
0,87
CASE OF EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM - [Czech Translation] summary by the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic
Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art 35-1) Four-month period (former six-month);(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Articl
CtEDO 2024-02-13
0,87
CASE OF EXECUTIEF VAN DE MOSLIMS VAN BELGIË AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM - [Spanish Translation] by the Spanish Ministry of Justice
Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art 35-1) Four-month period (former six-month);(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Articl
CtEDO 2021-08-23
0,86
VLADIMIROV v. RUSSIA
of the applicant’s freedom of thought or religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention? Did the military authorities and the domestic courts give due consideration to the applicant’s convictions? Did they rely on relevant and sufficient
CtEDO 2012-01-31
0,86
CASE OF SINDICATUL "PĂSTORUL CEL BUN" v. ROMANIA
on religion or belief, a difference of treatment based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out, a person’s relig
Sursă