Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAGDALT v. HUNGARY

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VAGDALT v. HUNGARY

  Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 23338/09

  Vaterschaftsprozess: Welchen Papa braucht das Kind?

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  In other cases the Court has found that rejections of the applicants' paternity-related claims did not breach the required fair balance under Article 8 of the Convention because they had been based on considerations such as the child having the benefit of previously established origin, the need to preserve stability and continuity in the children's relationships where there was an established social reality in which they thrived, or the fact that granting such requests would not have been in the child's best interests for other reasons (see Kautzor v. Germany, no. 23338/09, § 77, 22 March 2012, and Doktorov v. Bulgaria, no. 15074/08, § 31, 5 April 2018).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  Admissibility 40. As regards paternity proceedings, the Court has held on numerous occasions that such proceedings do fall within the scope of Article 8 (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I), which encompasses important aspects of personal identity (see Novotný v. the Czech Republic, no. 16314/13, § 41, 7 June 2018).
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08

  A.L. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  Moreover, the Court has previously examined a number of cases where the applicants s ought to either contest or claim paternity, which were rejected by the relevant national authorities after consideration of the factual circumstances and following a balancing exercise which, however succinct, accounted for the different interests involved paying particular attention to the needs of the child (see, for example, ibid., §§ 33-37, and A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, §§ 75-78, 18 February 2014).

 
• EGMR, 13.10.2020 - 32495/15

  KOYCHEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  The Court's assessment 50. In the present case, where the applicant complained that it was impossible to contest the declaration of paternity made by another man and to establish his own paternity in respect of C., who had been found to be his biological child, the Court finds it appropriate to examine the complaint from the angle of the State's positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention (see Koychev v. Bulgaria, no. 32495/15, § 55, 13 October 2020).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 69997/17

  LAVANCHY c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  As regards the effect of the statutory time-limit in the applicant's case, the Court notes that it has previously distinguished between situations in which the time-limits provided for by the domestic law to bring an action to establish paternity were of an absolute and rigid nature, and those where domestic law allowed those time-limits to be extended where the relevant facts were not known before the expiry (see Lavanchy v. Switzerland, no. 69997/17, § 34, 19 October 2021).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 48494/06

  KRISZTIÁN BARNABÁS TÓTH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  The Court notes that it has already held that such discretionary powers in the field of paternity action as provided for by the old Hungarian Family Act were not in themselves irreconcilable with the guarantees contained in Article 8 (see Krisztián Barnabás Tóth v. Hungary, no. 48494/06, § 33, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 8790/21

  SCALZO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  It also notes that it has previously acknowledged that a person has a vital interest, protected by the Convention, in receiving the information necessary to uncover the truth about an important aspect of his or her personal identity and to eliminate any uncertainty in this respect (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 42, ECHR 2003-III, and Scalzo v. Italy, no. 8790/21, § 58, 6 December 2022).
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 55339/00

  RÓZANSKI AGAINST POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  Having examined the manner in which all those elements taken together affected the applicant's situation, the Court concludes that, even having regard to the margin of appreciation left to the State, it failed to secure to the applicant the respect for his family life to which he is entitled under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Ró?¼a?„ski v. Poland, no. 55339/00, § 79, 18 May 2006).
• EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 15074/08

  DOKTOROV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  In other cases the Court has found that rejections of the applicants' paternity-related claims did not breach the required fair balance under Article 8 of the Convention because they had been based on considerations such as the child having the benefit of previously established origin, the need to preserve stability and continuity in the children's relationships where there was an established social reality in which they thrived, or the fact that granting such requests would not have been in the child's best interests for other reasons (see Kautzor v. Germany, no. 23338/09, § 77, 22 March 2012, and Doktorov v. Bulgaria, no. 15074/08, § 31, 5 April 2018).