Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIJAKOVA AND OTHERS v. \

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 9, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 10, Art. 10 Abs. 1, Art. 12, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 67914/01

  However, Article 8 does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for family life (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 15, § 31; and Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 67914/01

  It further notes that the general rule concerning the notion of victim is that the person bringing the application must be "the person directly affected by the act or omission which is at issue, the existence of a violation being conceivable even in the absence of prejudice." (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, § 66).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 67914/01

  However, Article 8 does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for family life (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 15, § 31; and Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 67914/01

  Thus, where the existence of a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures that will enable parent and child to be reunited (see, among other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
• EGMR, 22.09.1994 - 13616/88

  HENTRICH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2003 - 67914/01

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see, for example, Hentrich v. France, judgment of 22 September 1994, Series A no. 296-A, p. 18, § 33, and Remli v. France, judgment of 23 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II, p. 571, § 33).

• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 57813/00

  S.H. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA

  The Court reiterates that Article 12 of the Convention does not guarantee a right to procreation (see Margarita Sijakova and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (Dec), no. 67914/01, 6 March.2003).