Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DARÓCZY v. HUNGARY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 44378/05
• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 44378/05

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 44378/05

  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, for example, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 44378/05

  Imposing a restriction on one's right to bear or change a name without justified and relevant reasons is not compatible with the purpose of Article 8 of the Convention, which is to protect individuals" self-determination and personal development (see, inter alia, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 06.09.2007 - 10163/02

  JOHANSSON c. FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 44378/05

  However, even if there may exist genuine reasons prompting an individual to wish to change his or her name, the Court has accepted that legal restrictions on such a possibility may be justified in the public interest; for example in order to ensure accurate population registration or to safeguard the means of personal identification and of linking the bearers of a given name to a family (see Stjerna v. Finland, judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 299-B, p. 61, § 39, and Johansson v. Finland, no. 10163/02, §§ 35, 37 ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 44378/05

  The Court's task is not to substitute itself for the competent authorities in determining the most appropriate policy for regulating changes of names, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, for instance, Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55; mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 44378/05

  The Court's task is not to substitute itself for the competent authorities in determining the most appropriate policy for regulating changes of names, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, for instance, Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55; mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 24, p. 23, § 49).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.12.2010 - C-391/09

  Runevic-Vardyn und Wardyn - Unionsbürgerschaft - Grundsatz der …

  49 - EGMR, Urteile Burghartz/Schweiz vom 22. Februar 1994 (Serie A, Nr. 280-B, § 24), Stjerna/Finnland vom 25. November 1994 (Serie A, Nr. 299-B, § 37), Guillot/Frankreich vom 24. Oktober 1996 ( Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-V, § 21) und Daróczy/Ungarn vom 1. Juli 2008 (Beschwerde Nr. 44378/05, § 32).