Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  K.J. v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  ADZIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  However, the Court is in a position to ascertain whether the domestic courts, in applying and interpreting the provisions of that convention, secured the guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the Convention, particularly taking into account the child's best interests (see, amongst other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 32, § 68).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  SHAW v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).

• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 80606/17

  MOGA v. POLAND

  The relevant domestic law and practice, and international and comparative law, are set out in the judgment in the case of K.J. v. Poland (no. 30813/14, §§ 33-42, 1 March 2016) and in the judgment in the case of M.V. v. Poland (no. 16202/14, §§ 45-55, 1 April 2021).

  However, the Court is in a position to ascertain whether the domestic courts, in applying and interpreting the provisions of the Hague Convention, secured the guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the Convention, taking into particular account the child's best interests (see K.J. v. Poland, no. 30813/14, § 63, 1 March 2016).

• EGMR, 28.11.2023 - 30129/21

  GHAZARYAN v. ARMENIA

  The result was an overall lapse of time that, in such context, does not sit well with the urgency required by proceedings for the return of the child under the Hague Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, § 70, 21 July 2015; K.J. v. Poland, no. 30813/14, §§ 71-72, 1 March 2016; and, for illustrative purposes, A. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 28383/20, §§ 19-24, 9 May 2023).
• EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 23941/14

  LACOMBE c. FRANCE

  En revanche, elle est compétente pour rechercher si les tribunaux internes, dans l'application et l'interprétation des dispositions de cette convention, ont respecté les garanties de l'article 8 de la Convention, en tenant notamment compte de l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant (K.J. c. Pologne, no 30813/14, § 63, 1er mars 2016).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 1015/13

  BEKTAS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires relatives à des enlèvements internationaux d'enfants sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation du droit au respect de la vie familiale (voir, par exemple, Iosub Caras c. Roumanie, no 7198/04, §§ 32-40, 27 juillet 2006, Neulinger et Shuruk c. Suisse [GC], no 41615/07, §§ 131-140, CEDH 2010, X c. Lettonie [GC], no 27853/09, §§ 92-108, CEDH 2013, Blaga c. Roumanie, no 54443/10, §§ 64-91, 1er juillet 2014, G.S. c. Géorgie, no 2361/13, §§ 41-67, 21 juillet 2015, R.S. c. Pologne, no 63777/09, §§ 53-73, 21 juillet 2015, et K.J. c. Pologne, no 30813/14, §§ 51-75, 1er mars 2016).