Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUKAVINA v. CROATIA

  Art. 3, Art. 4, Art. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 10, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 14, Art. 17, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RUKAVINA v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 770/12

  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, among other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31, and Gluhakovic, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 770/12

  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 (see, among other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 59, Series A no. 130, and Gluhakovic v. Croatia, no. 21188/09, § 54, 12 April 2011).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 770/12

  The Court reiterates that the Article in question requires a remedy in domestic law only where an individual has an "arguable claim" that one of his or her rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention has been violated (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 75292/10

  OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131, and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; more recently, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 208, ECHR 2012; A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 60538/13, § 61, 12 November 2013, and Rukavina v. Croatia, (dec.), no. 770/12, § 75, 6 January 2015).
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 57752/21

  X v. SLOVAKIA

  Such result is incompatible with the authorities' duty to handle cases such as the present one with exceptional diligence (see Strömblad, cited above, § 88; Ribic v. Croatia, no. 27148/12, § 92, 2 April 2015, with further references; Anagnostakis and Others v. Greece, no. 46075/16, § 71, 23 September 2021; and, a contrario, Rukavina v. Croatia (dec.), no. 770/12, 6 January 2015).