Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,36867) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VILENCHIK v. UKRAINE
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
VILENCHIK v. UKRAINE
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14
- EGMR, 03.02.2021 - 21267/14
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09
SHAW v. HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14
The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013) as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 70, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).The delays in the procedure alone may enable the Court to conclude that the authorities had not complied with their positive obligations under the Convention (see, for example, Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011).
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08
Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14
40660/08 and 60641/08, § 99, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 23.11.2010 - 60041/08
GREENS ET M.T. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14
As regards the claim for punitive damages, the Court has declined to make any such awards in the past (see, for example, Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, nos. 60041/08 and 60054/08, § 97, ECHR 2010 (extracts), with further references). - EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05
Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14
The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013) as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 70, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015). - EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14
ADZIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14
The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013) as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 70, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).