STRØBYE AND ROSENLIND v. DENMARK JUDGMENT
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a
national minority, property, birth or other status.”
A. Admissibility
1. Submissions by the parties
123. The Government submitted that the application should be declared
inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3
of the Convention.
124. The applicants disagreed.
2. The Court’s assessment
125. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly
ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the
Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Submissions by the parties
126. The parties referred notably to their submissions under Article 3 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
127. The Court reiterates that Article 14 complements the other
substantive provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto. It has no
independent existence, since it has effect solely in relation to “the
enjoyment of the rights and freedoms” safeguarded by those provisions. The
application of Article 14 does not necessarily presuppose the violation of
one of the substantive rights guaranteed by the Convention. The prohibition
on discrimination in Article 14 thus extends beyond the enjoyment of the
rights and freedoms that the Convention and Protocols require each State to
guarantee (see, inter alia, Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 88,
24 May 2016).
128. According to established case-law, a difference in the treatment of
persons in relevantly similar situations is discriminatory if it has no
objective and reasonable justification; in other words, if it does not pursue a
legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality
between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (see,
inter alia, Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 135, 19 December
2018; Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no. 78117/13, § 113, 5 September 2017;
and Fabris v. France [GC], no. 16574/08, § 56, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
34