Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,26342
EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,26342)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.10.2013 - 7233/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,26342)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Oktober 2013 - 7233/04 (https://dejure.org/2013,26342)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,26342) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GOBEC v. SLOVENIA

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+6 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) No ...

Sonstiges (2)

 
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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 21.09.1994 - 17101/90

    FAYED c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    It thus enshrines a "right to a court", of which the right of access, namely the right to apply to a court in civil proceedings, is only one aspect (see Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294-B).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

    BELLET c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    They must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Fayed, cited above, § 65; Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 31, Series A no. 333-B; and Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, § 40, Reports 1996-V).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

    NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes a right for parents 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, and Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

    Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d.

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    In this regard, the Court reiterates that an applicant who has used a remedy which is apparently effective and sufficient cannot also be required to have tried others that were available but probably no more likely to be successful (see, for example, Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 39, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    The Court has already considered that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply the rule of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

    ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    The Court has already considered that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply the rule of its own motion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 160, ECHR 2004-II), even if the Government have not raised that objection (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07

    PLAZA v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    While in respect of very young children it is essentially for the authorities to assess whether contact with the parent should be encouraged and maintained or not, as children mature and become, with the passage of time, able to formulate their own opinion on their contact with the parents, the courts should also give due weight to their views and feelings and to their right to respect for their private life (see Plaza v. Poland, no. 18830/07, § 71, 25 January 2011).
  • EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

    ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    In this regard the Court would first point out that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited and that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply that law (see, for example, Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, § 62, Series A no. 156).
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

    KEEGAN v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    With regard to the applicant's complaint that the domestic authorities failed to enforce the contact schedule of 29 January 2002 and the decision of 15 November 2002, the Court reiterates, at the outset, that in addition to protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities, Article 8 also imposes positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for family life (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04
    It must be borne in mind that the national authorities have the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned and that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding contact issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of assessment (see Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

    SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 2303/19

    KATSIKEROS v. GREECE

    In their reasoning, they attached great importance to the lack of closeness between the applicant and M., to her very young age and to the applicant's choice not to follow the contact schedule set by the first-instance court, and thus concluded that the applicant's contact with M. should initially be limited until the father and daughter had started to get to know each other and until the former's interest in forming a relationship with his daughter became clear (see, in this regard, Giorgioni v. Italy, no. 43299/12, § 81, 15 September 2016, and compare Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, § 144, 3 October 2013, and Grujic v. Serbia, no. 203/07, §§ 72-73, 28 August 2018 in which the applicant's conduct was a factor taken into consideration by the Court).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

    Q AND R v. SLOVENIA

    It is not the Court's task to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding contact issues but rather to review under the Convention the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see S.J.P. and E.S. v. Sweden, no. 8610/11, §§ 89 and 91, 28 August 2018, and Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, §§ 132 and 133, 3 October 2013).
  • EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 1071/12

    DRENK c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

    Elle relève en outre que, contrairement à la réglementation slovène (voir Žunic c. Slovénie (déc.), no 24342/04, 18 octobre 2007, §§ 24 et 47 ; X c. Slovénie, no 40245/10, § 78, 28 juin 2012) qui est à l'origine du rejet de l'exception de non-épuisement dans les affaires slovènes similaires (Eberhard et M., nos 8673/05 et 9733/05, § 105, 1er décembre 2009 ; Gobec c. Slovénie, no 7233/04, § 118, 3 octobre 2013), la loi no 82/1998 ne prévoit pas de limites au montant de l'indemnisation et n'empêche pas les requérants de demander des dommages-intérêts avant la clôture de la procédure.
  • EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

    JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

    Bearing in mind that the positive obligations of the State in cases of this sort are ones of means and not of result, and in the light of the applicant's own questionable conduct as explained above, the Court does not consider that the failure to enforce the contact order may be attributed to a lack of diligence on the part of the relevant authorities (compare Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, § 152, 3 October 2013).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 15646/18

    BÎZDÎGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    In their reasoning, they attached great importance to the child's very young age, the temporary nature of the arrangement and the applicant's failure to respect the arrangement made by the child protection authority (see, in this regard, Giorgioni v. Italy, no. 43299/12, § 81, 15 September 2016; compare Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, § 144, 3 October 2013, and Katsikeros, cited above, §§ 56-57).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

    ADZIC v. CROATIA

    The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 73, ECHR 2002-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 67, 15 December 2005; and Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, § 105, 3 October 2013), considers in the circumstances of the present case that the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention must be regarded as absorbed by his complaint under Article 8 thereof.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht