Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DIACONEASA v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DIACONEASA v. ROMANIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 62250/19

  JIVAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53162/21

  The relevant provisions of European Union law, as well as those of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("the CRPD"), which was ratified by Romania on 31 January 2011, are summarised in Jivan v. Romania (no. 62250/19, §§ 20-23, 8 February 2022).

  Although she relied on several Articles of the Convention (Articles 5, 6 § 1 and 14), the Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Jivan v. Romania, no. 62250/19, § 28, 8 February 2022), which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:.

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 76639/11

  Denisov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53162/21

  Rn. 32 The Court must first decide whether Article 8 is applicable to the facts of the present case (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 93, 25 September 2018).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53162/21

  Although she relied on several Articles of the Convention (Articles 5, 6 § 1 and 14), the Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114, 124 and 126, 20 March 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Jivan v. Romania, no. 62250/19, § 28, 8 February 2022), which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:.

• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53162/21

  Rn. 40 Reiterating that applicants are expected to make normal use of those domestic remedies which are available and sufficient (see Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, § 85, 9 July 2015), the Court concludes that the applicant cannot be reproached for waiting until the end of the proceedings concerning the cancellation of the 2019 certificate before lodging the present application with the Court.
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 14462/03

  PENTIACOVA ET AUTRES c. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53162/21

  Rn. 49 The Court has previously considered a number of cases concerning funding for care and medical treatment to fall within the sphere of possible positive obligations when the applicants complained in substance not of action but of a lack of action by the respondent State (see, for example, Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003, and Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 27677/02

  SENTGES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 53162/21

  Rn. 49 The Court has previously considered a number of cases concerning funding for care and medical treatment to fall within the sphere of possible positive obligations when the applicants complained in substance not of action but of a lack of action by the respondent State (see, for example, Sentges v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 27677/02, 8 July 2003, and Pentiacova and Others v. Moldova (dec.), no. 14462/03, ECHR 2005-I).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BSG, 12.12.2024 - B 9 SB 2/24 R

  Schwerbehindertenrecht - GdB-Feststellung - Bewertung eines Diabetes mellitus Typ …

  Durchaus Vergleichbares gilt für die Unterstützung aus familiärer Solidarität (vgl § 1618a BGB) bei der Diabetestherapie wie im Fall der Klägerin, die grundsätzlich Vorrang gegenüber Assistenzleistungen hat und sie entbehrlich machen kann (vgl BSG Urteil vom 12.12.2013 - B 8 SO 18/12 R - juris RdNr 18; Sächsisches LSG Beschluss vom 12.7.2021 - L 8 SO 29/21 B ER - juris RdNr 43; zu den menschenrechtlichen Grenzen vgl EGMR Urteil vom 20.2.2024 - 53162/21 - BeckRS 2024, 2209 RdNr 61 ff; Welti, AuR 2024 Nr. 12 S 479 f.).
• EGMR, 11.07.2024 - 31842/20

  W.W. v. POLAND

  Rn. 87 The Court is therefore prepared to approach the case as one involving an interference with the applicant's right to respect for her private life (compare Diaconeasa v. Romania, no. 53162/21, §§ 50 and 51, 20 February 2024, and Y.Y. v. Turkey, no. 14793/08, § 66, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).