Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 8 Non-violation de l'art. 12 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DICKSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 12 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04
• EGMR, 14.09.2011 - 44362/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 28957/95

  Christine Goodwin ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  Nor can the Court discern in this regard any "evolving convergence as to the standards to be achieved" (Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.28957/95, § 74, ECHR 2002 VI).
• EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 70258/01

  SELMANI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  The Court accepts that the boundaries between the State's positive and negative obligations under Article 8 do not lend themselves to precise definition (Selmani v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 70258/01, ECHR 2001 VII).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 50490/99

  BOSO contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  The Court recalls that an interference with family life which is justified under paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention cannot at the same time constitute a violation of Article 12 (Boso v. Italy (dec.), no. 50490/99, ECHR 2002 VII).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 10454/83

  GASKIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  Moreover, any such obligation must not be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (Rees v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, § 37, Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, § 42; Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V, § 52; Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, § 116; and Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 40, ECHR 2003 VI).
• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  Moreover, any such obligation must not be interpreted in such a way as to impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (Rees v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, § 37, Gaskin v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 160, § 42; Sheffield and Horsham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V, § 52; Osman v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, § 116; and Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 44306/98, § 40, ECHR 2003 VI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  The fact of such control is not, in principle, incompatible with the Convention (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, § 98; the above-cited decision in Kalashnikov v. Russia; Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 144, 3 April 2003; and Aliev v. Ukraine, cited above, at § 187).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 26761/95

  PLOSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  It is well established that prisoners do not forfeit their Convention rights following conviction and sentence and continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention save for the right to liberty: those rights include the right to continue to enjoy respect for family and private life (Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) [GC], no. 74025/01, § 69, ECHR 2005... citing, inter alia, Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, judgment of 12 November 2002).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41220/98

  ALIEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 44362/04

  As to the present case, artificial insemination relates to the applicants" private and family life in such a way that the question of their access thereto falls within the ambit of Article 8 (the above-cited cases of E.L.H. and P.B.H v. the United Kingdom, Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, ECHR 2001-XI and Aliev v. Ukraine, no. 41220/98, § 187-189, 29 April 2003.