Tokens: 11
.
It
is
well
-
established
in
the
Court
’s
case
-
law
that
Article
14
has
no
autonomous
meaning
,
but
can
be
invoked
only
in
conjunction
with
another
Convention
guarantee
.
However
,
the
fact
that
the
substantive
provision
invoked
in
the
present
case
,
Article
8
of
the
Convention
,
has
been
analysed
in
detail
and
a
violation
has
been
found
does
not
mean
that
the
discriminatory
nature
of
the
State
action
has
been
sufficiently
examined
by
the
Court
.
In
other
words
,
the
scope
and
substance
of
Article
14
is
by
no
means
automatically
absorbed
by
the
scope
of
the
substantive
right
with
which
it
must
be
invoked
.
Such
automatic
absorption
would
deprive
Article
14
of
all
scope
of
application
and
render
it
the
‘
Cinderella
provision
’
of
the
Convention.[1
]
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