Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BACKLUND v. FINLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - reserved Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05
• EGMR, 12.07.2011 - 36498/05
• EGMR - 36498/05

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  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, 20.12.2007 - 23890/02

  PHINIKARIDOU c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  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, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98

  Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  In the instant case the Court is not called upon to determine whether the proceedings to establish parental ties between the applicant and his 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, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  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, 13.07.2006 - 58757/00

  JÄGGI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  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, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  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, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  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 - 36498/05

  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, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 36498/05

  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, 21.12.2010 - 20578/07

  Anayo ./. Deutschland

  Traditionell haben die Konventionsorgane die Auffassung vertreten, dass enge Beziehungen, bei denen es sich nicht um "Familienleben" handelt, grundsätzlich unter den Aspekt des "Privatlebens" fallen (…siehe Znamenskaya, a.a.O., Rdnr. 27 mit weiteren Nachweisen) Im Zusammenhang mit Verfahren über die Feststellung oder Anfechtung der Vaterschaft hat der Gerichtshof daher festgestellt, dass die Feststellung der rechtlichen Beziehung eines Mannes mit seinem rechtlichen oder vermeintlichen Kind zwar sein "Familienleben" betreffen könnte, dieser Punkt aber offen bleiben kann, weil die Sache zweifelsohne das Privatleben des Mannes nach Artikel 8 betrifft, der wichtige Aspekte der Persönlichkeit von Menschen umfasst (…siehe Rasmussen ./. Dänemark, 28. November 1984, Rdnr. 33, Serie A Bd. 87;… Nylund, a.a.O.; Yildirim ./. Österreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 34308/96, 19. Oktober 1999, und Backlund ./. Finnland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36498/05, Rdnr. 37, 6.
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 69997/17

  LAVANCHY c. SUISSE

  En ce qui concerne le premier cas de figure, la Cour a conclu à une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention lorsque le délai a été appliqué de manière rigide sans prendre en compte si l'enfant avait ou non eu connaissance des circonstances se rapportant à l'identité de son père (voir Phinikaridou, précité, Backlund c. Finlande, no 36498/05, 6 juillet 2010, et Röman c. Finlande, no 13072/05, 29 janvier 2013).