CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 septembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. September 1996 Gaygusuz v. Austria - 17371/90 Judgment 16.9.1996 Article 14 Discrimination Authorities' refusal to grant emergency assistance to an unemployed man who had exhausted entitlement to unemployment benefit on ground that he did not have Austrian nationality: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE   1 OF PROTOCOL No.   1 A.   Applicability Article 14 has no independent existence but complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols. Link between entitlement to emergency assistance and payment of contributions to unemployment insurance fund - pecuniary nature of right concerned: Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 applicable without it being necessary to rely solely on link between entitlement to emergency assistance and obligation to pay "taxes or other contributions" - Article   14 therefore applicable also. Conclusion : applicable (unanimously). B.   Compliance Applicant was lawfully resident in Austria and worked there, paying contributions to unemployment insurance fund in same capacity and on same basis as Austrian nationals - authorities' refusal based exclusively on fact that he did not have Austrian nationality - applicant in a like situation to Austrian nationals - difference in treatment not based on any "objective and reasonable justification". Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION In view of the above conclusion, unnecessary to consider the case under this provision. Conclusion : unnecessary to consider (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION In view of the above conclusion, no separate issue under this Article. Conclusion : unnecessary to consider (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Pecuniary damage: applicant's departure from Austria due to refusal to pay emergency assistance - award of compensation assessed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant a specified sum (eight votes to one). B.   Non-pecuniary damage: none claimed by applicant. C.   Costs and expenses: reimbursed on equitable basis. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant a specified sum (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes