presuppose a breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous –, there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall “within the ambit” of one or more of the latter ( Sejdić

does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or that there is not a “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised” (see, among many other authorities, Sejdić

  55707/00, § 74, ECHR 2009; and Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 39, ECHR 2009). 51.

Türkiye 31/03/2023 Seydi AÇAR 1985 Şanlıurfa Turkish 4. 14673/23 Yavuz v. Türkiye 29/03/2023 Hakan YAVUZ 1992 Denizli Turkish 5. 14683/23 Yılmaz v.

Türkiye 14/04/2021 Seydi TERCAN 1985 İzmir Turkish 309. 32573/21 Koç v. Türkiye 09/06/2021 Ahmet KOÇ 1975 Trabzon Turkish 310. 32606/21 Asan v.

Russia , nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, § 56, ECHR 2005-XII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-IV; and Sejdić and Finci v.

  2312/08 and 34179/08, §   81, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sejdić and Finci v.   Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 42, ECHR 2009; and Zornić v.

Georgia , (no. 9103/04, ECHR 2008); Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], nos.   27996/06 and   34836/06, ECHR 2009); and Krivobokov v. Ukraine ((dec.), no.

Notwithstanding the difference in scope between those provisions, the meaning of this term in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was intended to be identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdić and Finci v.

margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 79065/13 Sejda

    In the light of the above, and noting that the meaning of discrimination in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 is identical to that in Article   14 (see Sejdić and Finci v.

It thus introduces a general prohibition on discrimination (see Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 53, ECHR 2009). 43.

  12, the Court therefore sees no reason to depart from the established interpretation of “discrimination” (see Sejdić and Finci v.

Türkiye 15/06/2020 Seydi TERCAN 1985 İzmir Turkish Awarded 164. 27276/20 Ergincan v. Türkiye 29/06/2020 Gökhan ERGİNCAN 1965 Istanbul Turkish Awarded 165. 27565/20 Pekşen v.

Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of “the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention”, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 introduces a general prohibition of discrimination (see Sejdić

Protocol No. 12 extending the scope of protection to “any right set forth by law” – the meaning of discrimination in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was intended to be identical to that in Article 14 (see Sejdić

Convention prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of “the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention”, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 introduces a general prohibition of discrimination (see Sejdić

complain about a provision of national law simply because they consider, without having been directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention (see Norris , cited above, §   31, and Sejdić

does not pursue a “legitimate aim” or that there is not a “reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised” (see, among many other authorities, Sejdić

  55707/00, § 74, ECHR 2009; and Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 39, ECHR 2009). 49.