Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOKTOROV v. BULGARIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DOKTOROV v. BULGARIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 48494/06

  KRISZTIÁN BARNABÁS TÓTH v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 15074/08

  The Court has clarified in this context that it cannot satisfactorily assess whether a fair balance was struck for the purposes of Article 8 § 2 without determining whether the decision-making process, seen as a whole, provided the applicant with the requisite protection of his interests (see Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts) with further references, and Krisztián Barnabás Tóth v. Hungary, no. 48494/06, § 32, 12 February 2013).
• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 7949/11

  L.D. ET P.K. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 15074/08

  Importantly, the Court also considered relevant in those cases that the decision-making process comprised elements such as a detailed examination of the factual circumstances by the competent authorities, a consideration of the different interests involved, keeping in mind the higher interest of the child, and the question of whether the applicant had been given an opportunity to present his personal situation and position (see L.D. and P.K. v. Bulgaria, nos. 7949/11 and 45522/13, § 63 with further references, 8 December 2016).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 15074/08

  In both contexts consideration had to be given to the fair balance that needed to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation (see, among other authorities, Rózanski v. Poland, no. 55339/00, § 61, 18 May 2006, and Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, § 49).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 15074/08

  The Court has previously held that the determination of the father's legal relationship with his putative child pertained to his "private life" (see Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 33, Series A no. 87, and R.L. and Others v. Denmark, no. 52629/11, § 38, 7 March 2017).
• EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

  NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 15074/08

  In other cases the Court has found that rejections of the applicants" paternity-related claims did not breach the required fair balance under Article 8 of the Convention because they had been based on considerations such as the child having the benefit of previously established origin, the need to preserve stability and continuity in the children's relationships where there was an established social reality in which they thrived, or the fact that granting such requests would not have been in the child's best interests for other reasons (see Kautzor, cited above, § 77; Ahrens, cited above, § 74; Marinis v. Greece, no. 3004/10, § 77, 9 October 2014, and Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 3004/10

  MARINIS c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2018 - 15074/08

  In other cases the Court has found that rejections of the applicants" paternity-related claims did not breach the required fair balance under Article 8 of the Convention because they had been based on considerations such as the child having the benefit of previously established origin, the need to preserve stability and continuity in the children's relationships where there was an established social reality in which they thrived, or the fact that granting such requests would not have been in the child's best interests for other reasons (see Kautzor, cited above, § 77; Ahrens, cited above, § 74; Marinis v. Greece, no. 3004/10, § 77, 9 October 2014, and Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI).

• EGMR, 07.03.2024 - 9525/19

  VAGDALT v. HUNGARY

  In other cases the Court has found that rejections of the applicants' paternity-related claims did not breach the required fair balance under Article 8 of the Convention because they had been based on considerations such as the child having the benefit of previously established origin, the need to preserve stability and continuity in the children's relationships where there was an established social reality in which they thrived, or the fact that granting such requests would not have been in the child's best interests for other reasons (see Kautzor v. Germany, no. 23338/09, § 77, 22 March 2012, and Doktorov v. Bulgaria, no. 15074/08, § 31, 5 April 2018).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 56513/17

  c.P. ET M.N. c. FRANCE

  Elle juge toutefois qu'un délai rigide conduisant à une impossibilité absolue d'exercer une action en recherche de paternité, appliqué indépendamment des circonstances de l'espèce, porte atteinte à la substance même du droit au respect de la vie privée garanti par l'article 8 de la Convention (Backlund, précité, §§ 55-57, Grönmark c. Finlande, no 17038/04, §§ 55 et 57, 6 juillet 2010, Röman c. Finlande, no 13072/05, §§ 55-58, 29 janvier 2013, et Doktorov c. Bulgarie, no 15074/08, §§ 31-32, 5 avril 2018).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 50856/16

  GEORGIEV c. BULGARIE

  Le projet prévoit par ailleurs, en exécution d'un autre arrêt de la Cour, Doktorov c. Bulgarie (no 15074/08, 5 avril 2018), qu'un mari pourra contester l'effet de la présomption de paternité dans un délai d'un an qui courra non pas à compter de la naissance de l'enfant mais de sa connaissance des circonstances justifiant cette contestation (article 62, alinéa 1, du code).