Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2015,37828
EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,37828)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.10.2015 - 21823/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,37828)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. Oktober 2015 - 21823/12 (https://dejure.org/2015,37828)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,37828) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    STASIK v. POLAND

    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (englisch)

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

    BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    However, the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 56, ECHR 2001-I).
  • EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

    GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    Moreover, the parties" attitude does not dispense the courts from ensuring the expeditious trial required by Article 6 § 1 (see, for example, Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, § 32, Series A no. 81).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

    NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    The Court's case-law has consistently held that Article 8 includes both the right for a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take measures to facilitate that reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one as to results, but one as to means (see, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré, cited above, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 14565/05

    NISTOR c. ROUMANIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    The Court's case-law has consistently held that Article 8 includes both the right for a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take measures to facilitate that reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one as to results, but one as to means (see, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré, cited above, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07

    CRISTESCU v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    The Court's case-law has consistently held that Article 8 includes both the right for a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take measures to facilitate that reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one as to results, but one as to means (see, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré, cited above, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

    OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures (see, among other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    The Court's case-law has consistently held that Article 8 includes both the right for a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take measures to facilitate that reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one as to results, but one as to means (see, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré, cited above, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
    The Court reiterates in this connection that it is not its task to review domestic law in the abstract, but to examine the manner in which that law has been applied to the applicant (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 153, Series A no. 324).
  • EGMR, 28.09.2023 - 4065/21

    BELUCH v. POLAND

    The reason for the delays therein appears to be due to the lack of effectiveness and diligence on the part of the domestic courts (see Stasik v. Poland, no. 21823/12, § 93, 6 October 2015).
  • EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 35745/19

    WITT v. GERMANY

    The Court reiterates that the word "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for example, Stasik v. Poland, no. 21823/12, § 113, 6 October 2015, and Sidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 70491/13

    BABAYAN v. ARMENIA

    The Government submitted that the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage was unsubstantiated and exaggerated given the nature of the alleged violations and the established case-law of the Court in similar case (referring to Stasik v. Poland, no. 21823/12, 6 October 2015).
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