Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NOVOTNÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NOVOTNÝ c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 16314/13
• EGMR, 24.04.2019 - 16314/13

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 16314/13

  It therefore appears that the lack of a procedure for bringing the legal position into line with the biological reality is inconsistent with the wishes of those concerned and does not in fact benefit anyone (see Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C, p. 58, § 40).
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 16314/13

  It was also applicable in a situation where the child had been born in wedlock but the applicant had known for certain, or had had grounds for assuming, that he was not the father but - for reasons unconnected with the law - had taken no steps to contest paternity within the statutory time-limit (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 21 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 33, and Yildirim v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999).
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 5114/09

  KULYKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 16314/13

  Where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see, among many authorities, Kulykov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 5114/09 and 17 others, § 125, 19 January 2017).

 
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 3004/10

  MARINIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 16314/13

  In that regard, the Court notes that according to its established case-law Article 8 of the Convention encompasses, subject to permissible limitations, a putative father's right to institute proceedings to deny paternity of a child who, according to scientific evidence, is not his own (see Shofman, cited above, § 45; Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 112, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); and A.L., cited above, § 78; but contrast Marinis v. Greece, no. 3004/10, § 62, 9 October 2014).
• EGMR, 08.01.2007 - 39277/06

  KNÁKAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 16314/13

  The Court has previously accepted situations where the applicant had, via the prosecutor, access to a court to challenge his paternity and either the prosecutor (see Knákal v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39277/06, 8 January 2007, and Yildirim, cited above) or the courts examined the conflicting values and interests at stake and carefully balanced those interests and provided detailed reasons for their findings (compare and contrast Rózanski v. Poland, no. 55339/00, §§ 77-79, 18 May 2006, and see A.L., cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 289/07

  HOCEVAR v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 16314/13

  III. UÌ�S 289/07 of 26 April 2007 and III. UÌ�S 1506/07 of 17 January 2008, the Constitutional Court asked the Prosecutor General, when deciding whether (pursuant to Article 62 of the Family Code) to bring an action challenging paternity to bear in mind the relevant Court case-law, including the judgment in Paulík v. Slovakia, no. 10699/05, ECHR 2006 XI (extracts).