Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 45320/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,58985) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MCKAY-KOPECKA v. POLAND
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (1)
- EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80
GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2006 - 45320/99
Whether or not a particular habitation constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see the following authorities: Buckley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, § 46; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 13, p. 40).
- EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11
HASANALI ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN
Additionally, it appears from the case file that at the time of the eviction the flat was fully furnished (see paragraph 16 above; compare McKay-Kopecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 45320/99, 19 September 2006; Sagan v. Ukraine, no. 60010/08, § 52, 23 October 2018; and Halabi v. France, no. 66554/14, § 43, 16 May 2019). - EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27427/02
LAZARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Furthermore, the length of temporary or permanent stays in it, frequent absence from it or its use on a temporary basis, for the purposes of short-term stays or even keeping belongings in it, do not preclude retention of sufficient continuing links with a particular residential place, which can still be considered "home" for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention (see McKay-Kopecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 45320/99, 19 September 2006). - EGMR, 08.09.2022 - 1434/14
JANSONS v. LATVIA
Thus, the Court has considered a dwelling a "home" when it has been the applicants" actual place of residence, even when the registered address has been elsewhere (see Prokopovich, cited above, §§ 35-39, and Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia, no. 66610/10, §§ 29-32, 14 March 2017) and, in some situations, even when the applicants have not been living in the particular dwelling on a permanent basis or had not lived there for some period of time (see McKay-Kopecka v. Poland (dec.), no. 45320/99, 19 September 2006; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 127, 15 November 2007; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 58, 29 May 2012; see also Sargsyan, cited above, § 254).