Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,26381
EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,26381)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.09.2000 - 40031/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,26381)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. September 2000 - 40031/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,26381)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,26381) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GNAHORE v. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 8 Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GNAHORE c. FRANCE

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
    Non-violation de l'art. 6-1 Non-violation de l'art. 8 Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (36)Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    Whilst Article 6 § 1 guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts for the determination of their "civil rights and obligations", it leaves to the State a free choice of the means to be used towards this end and only compels the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for an effective access to court either because legal representation is rendered compulsory or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (see the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, § 26).

    Further, there is no issue over the principles established by the Court in its case-law (see, among other authorities, the Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 78-79, § 59, and the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, § 26) or the principles governing representation before the Court of Cassation in France and grants of legal aid as such.

  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    71-72, § 60, and p. 117, § 64; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 29, § 59; Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 24, § 58; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 25, § 72; Keegan cited above, p. 19, § 50; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 55, § 86; Johansen v. Norway, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp.

    Furthermore, the case-law of the Court indicates that the attitude of the person concerned is not wholly decisive (see the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, pp.

  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

    TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    The Court reiterates that a Contracting State which sets up an appeal system is required to ensure that persons within its jurisdiction enjoy before appellate courts the fundamental guarantees in Article 6 (see, among other authorities, the Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 78-79, § 59).

    Further, there is no issue over the principles established by the Court in its case-law (see, among other authorities, the Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 316-B, pp. 78-79, § 59, and the Airey v. Ireland judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, pp. 14-16, § 26) or the principles governing representation before the Court of Cassation in France and grants of legal aid as such.

  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    The Court notes, firstly, that by its very nature the tie between Mr Gnahoré and his minor son, C., comes within the notion of family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, the Keegan v. Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, pp. 17-18, § 44, and the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, pp. 19-20, § 54).

    35-36, § 90; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 22, § 58; and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 96, ECHR 2000-I), we do not agree with the majority's opinion that the relevant authorities "made genuine efforts" or that the failure of the measures "was due solely to the applicant's behaviour" (see paragraph 63 of the judgment).

  • EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

    OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    Thus, where the existence of a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures that will enable parent and child to be reunited (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Eriksson cited above, pp. 26-27, § 71; Margareta and Roger Andersson cited above, p. 30, § 91; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.

    (b) As to whether the authorities took all the measures that could reasonably be demanded of them in order to maintain contact between the father and the son (see the following judgments: Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.

  • EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 29340/95

    Pflicht zur Erschöpfung innerstaatlicher Rechtsbehelfe vor Anrufung des …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    The Court reiterates that an appeal to the Court of Cassation is one of the remedies that should in principle be exhausted in order to comply with Article 35 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Civet v. France [GC], no. 29340/95, § 41, ECHR 1999-VI).

    However, as the Court rightly reiterates, the purpose of Article 35 of the Convention is to "afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court" (see paragraph 46 in fine of the judgment) and appeals on points of law are in that regard of crucial importance (see Civet v. France [GC], no. 29340/95, § 41, ECHR 1999-VI).

  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    35-36, § 90; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 22, § 58; and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 96, ECHR 2000-I), we do not agree with the majority's opinion that the relevant authorities "made genuine efforts" or that the failure of the measures "was due solely to the applicant's behaviour" (see paragraph 63 of the judgment).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 32346/96

    Glaser ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    As the Court has recently reiterated, it has a duty to examine in the light of the Convention decisions taken by the national judicial authorities in the exercise of their discretion (see Glaser v. the United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 64, 19 September 2000, unreported).
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    The Court notes, firstly, that by its very nature the tie between Mr Gnahoré and his minor son, C., comes within the notion of family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, the Keegan v. Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, pp. 17-18, § 44, and the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, pp. 19-20, § 54).
  • EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

    McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98
    71-72, § 60, and p. 117, § 64; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 29, § 59; Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, p. 24, § 58; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 25, § 72; Keegan cited above, p. 19, § 50; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 55, § 86; Johansen v. Norway, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp.
  • EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

    MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
  • EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85
  • EGMR, 16.09.1999 - 29569/95

    BUSCEMI c. ITALIE

  • EKMR, 10.07.1980 - 8158/78

    X. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6780/18

    ROTH v. GERMANY and 1 other application

    The Court further observes that it has had to deal with the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies in a number of cases in which the applicant, having been refused legal aid due to the fact that the intended proceedings did not have reasonable prospects of success, did not pursue the main proceedings and thus did not avail him or herself of all the remedies which should, in principle, be exhausted in order to comply with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, §§ 46-48, ECHR 2000-IX; Storck, cited above; L.L. v. France, no. 7508/02, §§ 22-23, ECHR 2006-XI; Eckardt v. Germany (dec.), no. 23947/03, 10 April 2007; Vinke v. Germany (dec.) [Committee], no. 36894/08, 12 June 2012; and Annen v. Germany, no. 3690/10, § 37, 26 November 2015).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 11057/02

    Entziehung der elterlichen Sorge

    Daher muss der Staat, da wo familiäre Bindungen entstanden sind, grundsätzlich in einer Weise handeln, die so bemessen ist, dass diese Bindung sich entwickeln kann, und Maßnahmen ergreifen, die dem Elternteil und dem Kind eine Zusammenführung ermöglichen (siehe u. a. Rechtssache Eriksson ./. Schweden , Urteil vom 22. Juni 1989, Serie A Nr. 156, S. 26-27, Nr. 71, und Rechtssache Gnahoré ./. Frankreich , Nr. 40031/98, Nr. 51, EuGHMR 2000-IX ).
  • EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46800/99
    In its judgment of 19 September 2000 in Gnahoré v. France (no. 40031/98, § 41 in fine, ECHR 2000-IX) the Court, referring to Aerts v. Belgium (judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V), in which it had found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, noted that "there is no doubt that the fact that Mr Aerts was required to have legal representation [by a member of the Conseil d'Etat and Court of Cassation Bar] was decisive".
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht