Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2014,1976
EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,1976)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.02.2014 - 28609/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,1976)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Februar 2014 - 28609/08 (https://dejure.org/2014,1976)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,1976) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

  • EGMR, 19.10.1999 - 34308/96

    YILDIRIM v. AUSTRIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    The Government underlined the similarities between the applicant's case and the case of Yildirim v. Austria ((dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999).

    It has found on numerous occasions that proceedings concerning the establishment of or challenge against paternity concerned that man's private life under Article 8, which encompasses important aspects of one's personal identity (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 33, Series A no. 87; Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI; Yildirim v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999; Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 37, 6 July 2010; Pascaud v. France, no. 19535/08, §§ 48-49, 16 June 2011; Kruskovic v. Croatia, no. 46185/08, § 20, 21 June 2011; Ahrens v. Germany, no. 45071/09, § 60, 22 March 2012; Kautzor v. Germany, no. 23338/09, § 63, 22 March 2012; and Krisztián Barnabás Tóth v. Hungary, no. 48494/06, § 28 in fine, 12 February 2013).

  • EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

    Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012); however, the Court must be satisfied that the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the impugned measures by the domestic courts was fair and allowed those concerned to present their case fully, and that the best interests of the child were defended (see, X v. Latvia [GC], § 102, cited above).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    It follows from these considerations that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, inter alia, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Sommerfeld, § 62, and Görgülü, § 41, both cited above).
  • EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

    KOWAL v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

    NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    It has found on numerous occasions that proceedings concerning the establishment of or challenge against paternity concerned that man's private life under Article 8, which encompasses important aspects of one's personal identity (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 33, Series A no. 87; Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI; Yildirim v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999; Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 37, 6 July 2010; Pascaud v. France, no. 19535/08, §§ 48-49, 16 June 2011; Kruskovic v. Croatia, no. 46185/08, § 20, 21 June 2011; Ahrens v. Germany, no. 45071/09, § 60, 22 March 2012; Kautzor v. Germany, no. 23338/09, § 63, 22 March 2012; and Krisztián Barnabás Tóth v. Hungary, no. 48494/06, § 28 in fine, 12 February 2013).
  • EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 48494/06

    KRISZTIÁN BARNABÁS TÓTH v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    It has found on numerous occasions that proceedings concerning the establishment of or challenge against paternity concerned that man's private life under Article 8, which encompasses important aspects of one's personal identity (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 33, Series A no. 87; Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI; Yildirim v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999; Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 37, 6 July 2010; Pascaud v. France, no. 19535/08, §§ 48-49, 16 June 2011; Kruskovic v. Croatia, no. 46185/08, § 20, 21 June 2011; Ahrens v. Germany, no. 45071/09, § 60, 22 March 2012; Kautzor v. Germany, no. 23338/09, § 63, 22 March 2012; and Krisztián Barnabás Tóth v. Hungary, no. 48494/06, § 28 in fine, 12 February 2013).
  • EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

    POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
  • EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 23338/09

    Vaterschaftsprozess: Welchen Papa braucht das Kind?

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    It has found on numerous occasions that proceedings concerning the establishment of or challenge against paternity concerned that man's private life under Article 8, which encompasses important aspects of one's personal identity (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 33, Series A no. 87; Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI; Yildirim v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999; Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 37, 6 July 2010; Pascaud v. France, no. 19535/08, §§ 48-49, 16 June 2011; Kruskovic v. Croatia, no. 46185/08, § 20, 21 June 2011; Ahrens v. Germany, no. 45071/09, § 60, 22 March 2012; Kautzor v. Germany, no. 23338/09, § 63, 22 March 2012; and Krisztián Barnabás Tóth v. Hungary, no. 48494/06, § 28 in fine, 12 February 2013).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

    VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
  • EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

    PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08
    Incomplete and therefore misleading information may also amount to abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see, Hüttner v. Germany (dec.), no. 23130/04, 9 June 2006; Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007; Predescu v. Romania, no. 21447/03, §§ 25-26, 2 December 2008; and Kowal v. Poland (dec.), no. 2912/11, 18 September 2012).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05

    M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland

  • EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 45071/09

    Vaterschaftsprozess: Klagen leiblicher Väter abgewiesen

  • EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

    Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des

  • EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

    REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  • EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 35016/07

    WULFF v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

    KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

  • EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 55339/00

    RÓZANSKI v. POLAND

  • EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 17038/04

    GRONMARK CONTRE LA FINLANDE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  • EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 28945/95

    T.P. ET K.M. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

    RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  • EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 16112/15

    Kindeswohl: Ex-Liebhaber hat kein Recht auf Vaterschaftstest

    Der Gerichtshof weist auch erneut darauf hin, dass der Beurteilungsspielraum der Mitgliedstaaten hinsichtlich der Festlegung der Rechtsstellung eines Kindes groß, hinsichtlich der Umgangsfragen und Auskunftsrechte jedoch begrenzt ist (A.I../. Polen, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28609/08, Rdnr. 68, 18. Februar 2014; L.D. und P.K../. Bulgarien, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 7949/11 und 45522/13, Rdnr. 59, 8. Dezember 2016).
  • EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 67810/10

    GROSS v. SWITZERLAND

    Deuxičmement nous relevons que selon la jurisprudence de la Cour un constat d'abus du droit de recours individuel n'est possible que si un requérant a intentionnellement induit la Cour en erreur, « particuličrement lorsque les informations pertinentes concernent le noyau de l'affaire et que le requérant n'explique pas de façon suffisante son manquement ŕ les divulguer'(A.L. c. Pologne, no 28609/08, § 47, 18 février 2014, avec d'autres références).
  • EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 52629/11

    R.L. AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

    The Court agrees and observes that it has on many occasions found that an attempt by a putative father to officially disavow his paternity concerned his private life under the said provision (see, among others, A. L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 59, 18 February 2014).

    This does not mean that "when domestic authorities carefully assess the best interests of the child, the Court should not, in principle, contradict their findings, in particular if they are made by an independent court in judicial proceedings" (see paragraph 47 of the judgment, referring to A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 72, 18 February 2014).

  • EGMR, 14.03.2024 - 62020/14

    MOLDOVAN v. UKRAINE

    Lastly, in A.L. v. Poland (no. 28609/08, 18 February 2014) the applicant had challenged his own declaration of paternity on the basis of biological evidence, whereas the applicant in the present case had never requested changes in his birth record.
  • EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

    VAGDALT v. HUNGARY

    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, 14.01.2016 - 30955/12

    MANDET c. FRANCE

    Pour ce faire, la Cour doit examiner, ŕ la lumičre de l'ensemble de l'affaire, si les motifs invoqués pour la justifier étaient pertinents et suffisants aux fins du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8. Elle n'a pas pour tâche de se substituer aux autorités internes, qui bénéficient de rapports directs avec tous les intéressés, mais d'apprécier sous l'angle de la Convention les décisions qu'elles ont rendues dans l'exercice de leur pouvoir d'appréciation (voir, parmi d'autres, A.L. c. Pologne, no 28609/08, § 66, 18 février 2014).
  • EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 7949/11

    L.D. ET P.K. c. BULGARIE

    De plus, la marge d'appréciation est généralement étendue lorsque l'État doit ménager un équilibre entre des intéręts privés et des intéręts publics concurrents ou entre différents droits protégés par la Convention (S.H. et autres c. Autriche [GC], no 57813/00, § 94, CEDH 2011, et les références qui y sont citées ; voir aussi Ahrens, précité, § 68, A.L. c. Pologne, no 28609/08, § 68, 18 février 2014, et Mandet c. France, no 30955/12, § 52, 14 janvier 2016).
  • EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 56513/17

    c.P. ET M.N. c. FRANCE

    La Cour n'a cependant pas pour tâche de se substituer aux autorités internes, qui bénéficient de rapports directs avec tous les intéressés, mais d'apprécier sous l'angle de la Convention les décisions qu'elles ont rendues dans l'exercice de leur pouvoir d'appréciation (voir, parmi d'autres A.L. c. Pologne, no 28609/08, § 66, 18 février 2014).
  • EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

    TSVETELIN PETKOV v. BULGARIA

    In addition, in the context of complaints examined under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has held that it must be satisfied that the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the impugned measures by the domestic courts was fair and allowed those concerned to present their case fully, and that the best interests of the child were defended (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 102, ECHR 2013; A.L. v. Poland, no. 28609/08, § 72, 18 February 2014).
  • EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 22037/13

    CANONNE c. FRANCE

    Pour ce faire, la Cour doit examiner, ŕ la lumičre de l'ensemble de l'affaire, si les motifs invoqués pour la justifier étaient pertinents et suffisants aux fins du paragraphe 2 de l'article 8 ; elle n'a pas pour tâche de se substituer aux autorités internes, mais d'apprécier sous l'angle de la Convention les décisions qu'elles ont rendues dans l'exercice de leur pouvoir d'appréciation (męme arręt, § 68 ; voir aussi, parmi d'autres, A.L. c. Pologne, no 28609/08, § 66, 18 février 2014).
  • EGMR - 40034/20 (anhängig)

    POKORNÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht