Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAULIK c. SLOVAQUIE [Extraits]

  Art. 13, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 13+6, Art. 13+8, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 14+8 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 6 13+6 13+8 14+6 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAULIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 13, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 13+6, Art. 13+8, Art. 14+6, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 14+8 Not necessary to examine Arts. 6 13+6 13+8 14+6 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 10699/05
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 10699/05

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 10699/05

  In those cases the question was left open as to whether the paternity proceedings aimed at the dissolution in law of existing family ties concerned the applicant's "family life" because, in any event, the determination of the father's legal relations with his putative child concerned his "private life" (see Yildirim v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999, and Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 33).

  The Court finds that with regard to their interest in contesting a status relating to paternity, the applicant and the other parties in question were in an analogous situation for the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Rasmussen v. Denmark, no. 8777/79, Commission's report of 5 July 1983, Series A no. 87, p. 24, § 75, and Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 131, ECHR 2006-...).

  The Court reiterates that the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation when assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment in law (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 36, § 40).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 10699/05

  For the purposes of Article 14 of the Convention, a difference of treatment is discriminatory if it "has no objective and reasonable justification", that is, if it does not pursue a "legitimate aim" or if there is "no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, among other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 35, § 72).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 34369/97

  THLIMMENOS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 10699/05

  It reiterates that the right under Article 14 not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is violated when States treat differently persons in analogous situations without providing an objective and reasonable justification (see, for example, Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, § 44, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 10699/05

  The Court reiterates that it is not its role to decide in the abstract whether the applicable domestic law is compatible with the Convention or whether the domestic law has been complied with by the national authorities (see Ringeisen v. Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, § 97).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.10.2006 - 10699/05

  Furthermore, even in relation to the positive obligations flowing from the first paragraph, "in striking [the required] balance the aims mentioned in the second paragraph may be of a certain relevance" (see Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, § 41).

• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 23890/02

  PHINIKARIDOU c. CHYPRE

  La Cour a ainsi estimé que des délais de prescription rigides ou d'autres obstacles mis à des actions en désaveu de paternité qui s'appliquent bien que le père présumé ait eu connaissance de circonstances jetant le doute sur sa paternité, sans souffrir aucune exception, méconnaissent l'article 8 de la Convention (Shofman, précité, §§ 43-45 ; voir aussi, mutatis mutandis, Mizzi, précité, §§ 80 et 111-113 ; Paulík c. Slovaquie, no 10699/05, §§ 45-47, CEDH 2006-XI (extraits), et Tavlı c. Turquie, no 11449/02, §§ 34-38, 9 novembre 2006).