Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EBERHARD AND M. v. SLOVENIA

  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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 8673/05
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05, 9733/05
• EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 8673/05

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 39177/05

  V.A.M. v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  The Court deems it appropriate to examine these arguments in the context of the latter provision (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I, and V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 115, 13 March 2007).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  In both contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 of the Convention and, whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, § 31).
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84

  NIELSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  The Court recalls that a person who is not entitled under domestic law to represent another may nevertheless, in certain circumstances, act before the Court in the name of the other person (see, mutatis mutandis, Nielsen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1988, Series A no. 144, §§ 56-57).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  Consequently, even though the parent has been deprived of parental rights, the standing as the natural parent suffices to afford him the necessary power to apply to the Court on the child's behalf, too, in order to protect his or her interests (cf. Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Siebert, cited above).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 8673/05

  Referring to the Hokkanen v. Finland case (23 September 1994, § 50, Series A no. 299-A), the Government argued that in order to lodge an application on behalf of the second applicant, the first applicant would therefore need to submit an authority form signed by M.E., who was the second applicant's statutory representative.