Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FERRARI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FERRARI c. ROUMANIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'article 8 - Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale (Article 8-1 - Respect de la vie familiale) (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FERRARI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-638/22

  Das Unionsrecht steht dem entgegen, dass nationale Stellen ohne Begründung die …

  Verzögerungen im Verfahren können als solche die Feststellung erlauben, dass die staatlichen Stellen ihren positiven Verpflichtungen aus der EMRK nicht nachgekommen sind (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, Urteil vom 28. April 2015, Ferrari/Rumänien, CE:ECHR:2015:0428JUD000171410, § 49).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 49450/17

  O.C.I. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The relevant provisions of the domestic law concerning implementation of the Hague Convention are presented in Ferrari v. Romania (no. 1714/10, §§ 25-28, 28 April 2015).

  The Court reiterates that in the context of an application for return, which is distinct from custody proceedings, it is primarily for the national authorities of the requested State, which have, inter alia, the benefit of direct contact with the interested parties, to establish the best interests of the child and evaluate the case in the light of the exceptions provided for by the Hague Convention (see Ferrari v. Romania, no. 1714/10, § 46, 28 April 2015, and Anghel, cited above, § 80).

• VG Düsseldorf, 16.12.2022 - 6 L 2430/22

  Luftsicherheit, Luftverkehr, Verkehrspilot, Zuverlässigkeit, Widerruf, …

  Rn. 99 Vgl. zum entscheidungserheblichen Zeitpunkt im Luftsicherheitsrecht: OVG NRW, Beschluss vom 22. Juli 2011 - 20 B 1714/10 -, n.v.; Kammer, Beschluss vom 21. Februar 2019 - 6 L 3108/18 -, juris, Rn. 62.

• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 51056/21

  OSSO v. BULGARIA

  Effective respect for family life requires that future relations between parent and child not be determined by the mere effluxion of time (see, among many others, Ferrari v. Romania, no. 1714/10, § 53, 28 April 2015).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 57906/18

  VERES c. ESPAGNE

  Taking into account what was at stake for the applicant, namely his family ties and contact with his daughter, the Court considers that the national courts did not take swift and adequate measures in order to enforce the Hungarian decision ordering the applicant's ex-wife to return the child back to Hungary (compare, mutatis mutandis, Marcready, cited above, § 73; Shaw, cited above, § 64; Ferrari v. Romania, no. 1714/10, § 54, 28 April 2015; and Vilenchik v. Ukraine, no. 21267/14, § 55, 3 October 2017).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 10395/19

  MICHNEA v. ROMANIA

  The relevant provisions of Law no. 369/2004 on the enforcement of the Hague Convention are presented in Ferrari v. Romania (no. 1714/10, §§ 25-28, 28 April 2015, and Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 50, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 9256/19

  VOICA v. ROMANIA

  The relevant provisions of Law no. 369/2004 on the enforcement of the Hague Convention are set out in Ferrari v. Romania (no. 1714/10, § 25, 28 April 2015) and Blaga v. Romania (no. 54443/10, § 50, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 22.05.2018 - 63551/13

  M.R. AND D.R. v. UKRAINE

  Proceedings relating to the award of parental responsibility, including the enforcement of the final decision, require urgent handling as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the parent with whom the child does not live (see Maire, cited above, § 74 and Ferrari v. Romania, no. 1714/10, § 49, 28 April 2015).
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 16202/14

  M.V. v. POLAND

  As the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Ferrari v. Romania, no. 1714/10, § 31, 28 April 2015, and Vilenchik v. Ukraine, no. 21267/14, § 39, 3 October 2017 with further references), the Court considers that the applicant's complaint should be examined under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, which read as follows, in so far as relevant:.
• EGMR, 24.03.2026 - 24011/23

  BADEA v. ROMANIA

  Such a delay is hard to reconcile with the duty to handle applications for return expeditiously (see R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, § 70, 21 July 2015; Ferrari v. Romania, no. 1714/10, § 54, 28 April 2015; and Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006).
• EGMR, 24.07.2018 - 25612/12

  VYSHNYAKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 4993/15

  B.S. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14

  VILENCHIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 27249/21 (anhängig)

  BORANYAN v. UKRAINE