Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,65154
EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,65154)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.07.2010 - 17038/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,65154)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Juli 2010 - 17038/04 (https://dejure.org/2010,65154)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,65154) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 23890/02

    PHINIKARIDOU c. CHYPRE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    In connection with the examination of the case Phinikaridou v. Cyprus (no. 23890/02, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts)), the Court made a comparative study of the Contracting States' legislation on the institution of actions for judicial recognition of paternity.
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    In this connection the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32).
  • EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

    MIKULIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006-).
  • EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98

    Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    In the instant case the Court is not called upon to determine whether the proceedings to establish parental ties between the applicant and her biological father concern "family life" within the meaning of Article 8, since in any event the right to know one's ascendants falls within the scope of the concept of "private life", which encompasses important aspects of one's personal identity, such as the identity of one's parents (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III, and Mikulic v. Croatia, cited above, § 53).
  • EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 58757/00

    JÄGGI c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006-).
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

    KEEGAN v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; and Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, cited above).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    The Court reiterates that its task is not to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities in regulating paternity disputes at the national level, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, inter alia, Rózanski v. Poland, no. 55339/00, § 62, 18 May 2006; Mikulic v. Croatia, cited above, § 59; and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
  • EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

    KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 31, Series A no. 297-C; and Mikulic v. Croatia, cited above, § 57).
  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

    RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 17038/04
    The Court recalls that it has previously accepted that the introduction of a time-limit for the institution of paternity proceedings was justified by the desire to ensure legal certainty and finality in family relations (see, for example, Mizzi v. Malta, cited above, § 88; and Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 41, Series A no. 87).
  • EGMR, 16.06.2011 - 19535/08

    PASCAUD c. FRANCE

    La Cour admet que le refus d'annuler la reconnaissance de C.P. et de reconnaître sa filiation envers son père biologique présumé pouvait se justifier par la nécessité de respecter les droits de ce dernier (voir, notamment, Phinikaridou c. Chypre, no 23890/02, § 53, CEDH 2007-XIV (extraits), Backlund c. Finlande, no 36498/05, § 45, 6 juillet 2010, et Grönmark c. Finlande, no 17038/04, § 48, 6 juillet 2010).
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