Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DARICIUC v. ROMANIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DARICIUC v. ROMANIA

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

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

• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07

  PLAZA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 47873/13

  The child's best interests must be the primary consideration (see, to that effect, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010, and Plaza v. Poland, no. 18830/07, § 71, 25 January 2011) and may, depending on their nature and seriousness, override those of the parents (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 47873/13

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents and/or other members of the child's family, Article 8 includes a person's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with the child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such 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 of result, but of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; and Mitovi, cited above, §§ 55-56).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 47873/13

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents and/or other members of the child's family, Article 8 includes a person's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with the child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such 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 of result, but of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; and Mitovi, cited above, §§ 55-56).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 47873/13

  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).

• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 59164/09

  C. v. ROMANIA AND AUSTRIA

  Even though the primary object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against unjustified interference by public authorities, there are, in addition, positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for family life (see, amongst other authorities, Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 83, 6 December 2007; and Dariciuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 47873/13, § 83, 7 July 2015).