Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R. I. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Arrêt R. I. et autres c. Roumanie - défaut d'exécution des décisions de justice en faveur de la mère

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Judgment R. I. and Others v. Romania - failure to enforce child custody orders in favour of mother

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RALUCA IONESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  The Court reiterates that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, even when the relationship between the parents has broken down (see, among many other authorities, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 50, Series A no. 290; Eberhard and M., cited above, § 125; and Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 8 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the complaints raised under Articles 13 and 34 (see, mutatis mutandis, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  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 and 126, ECHR 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 8 alone (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, § 111, 1 December 2009).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures, but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see Mihailova v. Bulgaria, no. 35978/02, § 80, 12 January 2006, and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 10161/13

  M. AND M. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  Further, even though the primary object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by public authorities, there are, in addition, positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for family life (see Keegan, cited above, § 49; Eberhard and M., cited above, § 126; and M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, § 176, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  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 Eberhard and M., cited above, § 127).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  On this point, they relied on the cases of Varbanov v. Bulgaria (no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X); Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) (no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005); Rehak v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004); and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia ((dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  On this point, they relied on the cases of Varbanov v. Bulgaria (no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X); Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) (no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005); Rehak v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004); and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia ((dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  On this point, they relied on the cases of Varbanov v. Bulgaria (no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X); Popov v. Moldova (no. 1) (no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005); Rehak v. the Czech Republic ((dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004); and Kérétchachvili v. Georgia ((dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 9733/05

  EBERHARD AND M. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 57077/16

  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 and 126, ECHR 2018), will examine the complaint from the standpoint of Article 8 alone (see, for example and mutatis mutandis, Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, § 111, 1 December 2009).