Tokens: 2
.
In
paragraph
124
of
the
judgment
,
the
majority
reiterates
the
Court
’s
pre
-
existing
case
-
law
that
where
a
substantive
Article
of
the
Convention
has
been
invoked
both
on
its
own
and
together
with
Article
14
,
and
a
separate
breach
has
been
found
of
the
substantive
Article
,
it
is
not
generally
necessary
for
the
Court
to
also
examine
the
case
under
Article
14
unless
a
fundamental
aspect
of
the
case
is
a
clear
inequality
of
treatment
in
the
enjoyment
of
the
right
in
question
(
see
Dudgeon
v.
the
United
Kingdom
,
22
October
1981
,
§
67
,
Series
A
no
.
45
;
Chassagnou
and
Others
v.
France
[
GC
]
,
nos
.
25088/94
,
28331/95
and
28443/95
,
§
89
,
ECHR
1999
-
III
;
Timishev
v.
Russia
,
nos
.
55762/00
and
55974/00
,
§
53
,
ECHR
2005
-
XII
;
and
A.K.
and
L.
v.
Croatia
,
no
.
37956/11
,
§
92
,
8
January
2013
)
.
In
the
present
case
,
in
view
of
its
detailed
analysis
of
Article
8
and
the
violation
of
that
provision
found
,
the
majority
applied
this
case
-
law
to
find
that
it
was
not
necessary
to
determine
whether
the
domestic
courts
’
decisions
were
also
discriminatory
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O