Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CVETKOVIC v. SERBIA

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  CVETKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42707/10

  The Court reiterates that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life even when the relationship between the parents has broken down (see among many other authorities Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 170, 27 September 2011, and Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 50, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42707/10

  In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court cannot confine itself to considering the impugned judgments in isolation, but must look at them in the light of the case as a whole; it must determine whether the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were relevant and sufficient (see Diamante and Pelliccioni, cited above, § 182, and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42707/10

  The Court's role is not to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities in regulating custody issues, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their discretion and to determine whether the reasons purporting to justify rendered decisions were relevant and sufficient (see Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42707/10

  Finally, the Court reiterates that the competent national authorities are in principle better placed than an international judge to evaluate the evidence before them (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250) and finds that the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were relevant and sufficient and that the authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation in arriving at their decision (compare Hokkanen, cited above, § 64 and Olsson (no. 2), cited above, § 91 and contrast Olsson (no. 1), cited above, § 83).

• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 22076/20

  VYALSHINA v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that the decision at issue was reached following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was placed in a position enabling her to put forward all arguments in support of her position and she also had access to all relevant information that was relied on by the courts (compare to Cvetkovic v. Serbia, no. 42707/10, §§ 56-65, 7 February 2017; Malinin v. Russia, no. 70135/14, §§ 67-78, 12 December 2017; and Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, §§ 69-77, 10 April 2018).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 46413/18

  SAMOYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that the decision at issue was reached following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was placed in a position enabling her to put forward all arguments in support of her position and she also had access to all relevant information that was relied on by the courts (compare to Cvetkovic v. Serbia, no. 42707/10, §§ 56-65, 7 February 2017; Malinin v. Russia, no. 70135/14, §§ 67-78, 12 December 2017; and Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, §§ 69-77, 10 April 2018).