Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.P. v. POLAND

  Art. 8 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.01.2006 - 8677/03
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35731/97

  VENEMA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  It must also be shown that the costs were actually and necessarily incurred and that they are reasonable as to quantum (see, for instance, Venema v. the Netherlands, no. 35731/97, § 117, ECHR 2002-X).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  Having regard to the sums awarded in comparable cases (see, for instance, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 117, and Hokkanen, cited above, p. 27, § 77; see also, mutatis mutandis, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 71, ECHR 2000-VIII and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-I; and Sylvester, cited above, § 84) and making an assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41, the Court awards the applicant EUR 7, 000.

 
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that the Convention must be applied in accordance with the principles of international law, in particular with those relating to the international protection of human rights (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 90, ECHR 2001-II, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  Having regard to the sums awarded in comparable cases (see, for instance, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 117, and Hokkanen, cited above, p. 27, § 77; see also, mutatis mutandis, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 71, ECHR 2000-VIII and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-I; and Sylvester, cited above, § 84) and making an assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41, the Court awards the applicant EUR 7, 000.
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  The difference between the purpose pursued by the respective safeguards afforded by Articles 6 and 8 may, in the light of the particular circumstances, justify the examination of the same set of facts under both Articles (see for instance McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 57, § 91).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  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, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 8677/03

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly held that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, § 53; Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 96; Nuutinen, cited above, § 128; and Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 59, 24 April 2003).