Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
A.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2022, 1001
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13
K.B. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19
23280/08 and 2334/10, §§ 39-42, 6 October 2016; and K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, §§ 109-10, 14 March 2017).Having referred to Sahin v. Germany (dec.) (no. 30943/96, 10 December 2000), Moog v. Germany (nos. 23280/08 and 2334/10, §§ 39-42, 6 October 2016), and K.B. and Others v. Croatia (no. 36216/13, §§ 109-10, 14 March 2017), the Court reached the conclusion that the applicant did not have locus standi to act on behalf of the children.
23280/08 and 2334/10, §§ 39-42, 6 October 2016; and K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, §§ 109-10, 14 March 2017).".
- EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08
BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19
Judge Wojtyczek also makes timely suggestions in his concurring opinion in Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) ([GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015).What are the Challenges for the ECHR?", in P. Pinto de Albuquerque and K. Wojtyczek (eds.), Judicial Power in a Globalized World: Liber Amicorum Vincent De Gaetano, 2019; Judge Wojtyczek, Concurring opinions in Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015, and A. and B. v. Croatia, no. 7144/15, 20 June 2019.
- EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 35159/09
P.V. c. ESPAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19
The self-acknowledged lack of scientific research supporting the experts" conclusions and the apparent lack of an explanation as to how the applicant's contact with her children could negatively affect their psychological health should have alerted the domestic courts in the present case and should have called for close scrutiny of the reliability and quality of the findings submitted to them (compare X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 102 and 106, ECHR 2013, and P.V. v. Spain, no. 35159/09, § 36, 30 November 2010).[9] To give an example, in P.V. v. Spain (no. 35159/09, 30 November 2010), where the Spanish first-instance judge did not deprive the applicant of her parental rights or restrict communication, as the mother had requested, but established a new contact arrangement subject to periodic revision, the Court found no violation.
- BVerfG, 14.10.2004 - 2 BvR 1481/04
EGMR-Entscheidungen
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19
[4] Bundesverfassungsgericht, 14 October 2004 (2 BvR 1481/04) NJW 2004, 3407, § 59. - EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98
SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19
[3] Contrary to cases, for instance and under certain circumstances, where the applicant is opposed to the person appointed by the authorities to act as the child's guardian (see, for example, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Siebert v. Germany (dec.), no. 59008/00, 9 June 2005). - EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 7144/15
A AND B v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19
What are the Challenges for the ECHR?", in P. Pinto de Albuquerque and K. Wojtyczek (eds.), Judicial Power in a Globalized World: Liber Amicorum Vincent De Gaetano, 2019; Judge Wojtyczek, Concurring opinions in Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015, and A. and B. v. Croatia, no. 7144/15, 20 June 2019. - EGMR, 21.12.1999 - 33290/96
SALGUEIRO DA SILVA MOUTA c. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19
In a different case the Court held that no reasonable relationship of proportionality existed between the means employed and the aim pursued when a difference of a parent's treatment was based on considerations regarding the applicant's sexual orientation, a distinction which is not acceptable under the Convention (compare Salgueiro da Silva Mouta v. Portugal, no. 33290/96, § 36, ECHR 1999-IX).
- EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 43229/18
Y.Y. AND Y.Y. v. RUSSIA
v. Russia (concurring opinion of Judge Elósegui and joint concurring opinion of Judges Ravarani and Elósegui, A.M. and Others v. Russia, no. 47220/19, 6 July 2021)[2], in family-related matters under domestic civil law proceedings, where multiple parties are involved, the European Court of Human Rights encounters a number of difficulties in analysing questions of locus standi where one of the parents wants to act on behalf of the minor, in cases of an alleged violation of Article 8 ECHR.The fact that the Government has not contested the applicant's standing is not decisive (compare A.M. and Others v. Russia, no. 47220/19, § 42-43, 6 July 2021).
- EGMR, 19.10.2023 - 48618/22
A.S. ET M.S. c. ITALIE
En pareille situation, la qualité de parent naturel ne peut être considérée comme une base suffisante pour introduire une demande au nom d'un enfant (Eberhard et M. c. Slovénie, nos 8673/05 et 9733/05, § 88, 1er décembre 2009, K.B. et autres c. Croatie, no 36216/13, §§ 110-111, 14 mars 2017, Moog c. Allemagne, nos 23280/08 et 2334/10, § 41, 6 octobre 2016, et A.M. et autres c. Russie, no 47220/19, § 43, 6 juillet 2021).Nous souhaiterions noter ici que ces questions ont été abordées, entre autres, dans les opinions séparées suivantes: l'opinion concordante du juge Wojtyczek jointe à l'arrêt Bochan c. Ukraine (no 2) [GC], no 22251/08, CEDH 2015 ; l'opinion dissidente du juge Wojtyczek jointe à l'arrêt Kosmas et autres c. Grèce, no 20086/13, 29 juin 2017 ; l'opinion concordante commune aux juges Ravarani et Elósegui jointe à l'arrêt A.M. et autres c. Russie, no 47220/19, 6 juillet 2021.
- EGMR, 16.09.2021 - 20741/10
X v. POLAND
Procedural justice requires that all persons whose rights and interests may be affected by the outcome of the proceedings should be heard before a decision is taken (see, in particular: the powerful joint concurring opinion of Judges Ravarani and Elósegui, appended to the judgment A.M. and Others v. Russia, no. 47220/19, 6 July 2021; P. Pastor Vilanova, "Third Parties Involved in International Litigation Proceedings. What Are the Challenges for the ECHR?" in Judicial Power in a Globalized World. Liber Amicorum Vincent De Gaetano, P. Pinto de Albuquerque, K. Wojtyczek (eds.), Springer 2019; I refer also to my separate opinions, appended to the judgments in the cases of Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, ECHR 2015; Kosmas and Others v. Greece, no. 20086/13, 29 June 2017; A and B v. Croatia, no. 7144/15, 20 June 2019; and Smiljanic v. Croatia, no. 35983/14, 25 March 2021; also to K. Wojtyczek, "Procedural justice and the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights: who should have the right to be heard?" in: Fair trial: regional and international perspectives: Liber Amicorum Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos./ Procès équitable: perspectives regionales et internationales: Liber Amicorum Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, R. Spano et al. - EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 12937/20
S.N. ET M.B.N. c. SUISSE
Par conséquent, et en l'absence d'indications contraires, elle peut introduire la présente requête également au nom de sa fille (voir, dans ce sens, Y.S. et O.S. c. Russie, no 17665/17, § 57, 15 juin 2021, Neulinger et Shuruk, précité, § 1, Maumousseau et Washington c. France, no 39388/05, § 7, 6 décembre 2007, Sneersone et Kampanella, précité, §§ 60-61, et a contrario, A.M. c. Russie, no 47220/19, §§ 42-44, 6 juillet 2021).