Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,32670
EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10 (https://dejure.org/2019,32670)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.10.2019 - 56065/10 (https://dejure.org/2019,32670)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Oktober 2019 - 56065/10 (https://dejure.org/2019,32670)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,32670) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

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

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

    NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (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, 03.07.2008 - 40383/04

    VIDAS v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    The Court notes that the proceedings which the applicant instituted in order to obtain redress for the situation about which she complained to the Court were pending before the Constitutional Court for three and a half years without any possibility of the case being dealt with as a priority policy, a lapse of time which cannot clearly be reconcilable with the general speediness requirement (see, in general context, Scordino, cited above, § 202; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 123, 10 September 2010, with further references; Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 37, 3 July 2008; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, § 56-57 and 65, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); and Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 55, 10 April 2008; see, also, in respect of a preventive and compensatory nature of a remedy in context of Article 8, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 136-137, 15 January 2015; Macready v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 48; Bergmann v. the Czech Republic, no. 8857/08, 27 October 2011, §§ 45-46 with further references, and Mansour v. Slovakia, 60399/15, §§ 41-42, 21 November 2017).
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

    KEEGAN v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    In both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the State's margin of appreciation (see, amongst other authorities, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290, and Siemianowski v. Poland, no. 45972/99, § 97, 6 September 2005).
  • EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 5222/07

    DAMNJANOVIC v. SERBIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen, cited above, § 58; Nuutinen, cited above, §§ 127-28; Glaser, cited above, § 66; Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 59, 24 April 2003; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, § 56, 23 June 2005; and Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 76, 28 May 2013; see also the cases against Serbia, V.A.M. v. Serbia, cited above, §§ 140-44; Tomic, cited above, §§ 100-02; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; Krivo?.ej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010; and Damnjanovic v. Serbia, no. 5222/07, § 80-82, 18 November 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

    LEONOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    The Court adopted such an approach in the Leonov case (see Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, § 55, 10 April 2018), in which the applicant complained that the domestic authorities had not adduced relevant and sufficient reasons for granting a residence order in favour of his son's mother and, previously, for the interim order prohibiting him from contacting his son or picking him up from his nursery pending the residence order proceedings.
  • EGMR, 26.07.2001 - 51585/99

    HORVAT v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    As regards the first objection, the Court notes that a complaint to the Ministry would be a hierarchical complaint or, in other words, no more than mere information submitted to the supervisory organ with full discretion to make use of its powers as it sees fit and without involving the applicant in the proceedings even if taken (see, mutatis mutandis, V.A.M. v. Serbia, cited above, § 85; Horvat v. Croatia, no. 51585/99, § 47, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Hartman v. the Czech Republic, no. 53341/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

    FELBAB v. SERBIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen, cited above, § 58; Nuutinen, cited above, §§ 127-28; Glaser, cited above, § 66; Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 59, 24 April 2003; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, § 56, 23 June 2005; and Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 76, 28 May 2013; see also the cases against Serbia, V.A.M. v. Serbia, cited above, §§ 140-44; Tomic, cited above, §§ 100-02; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; Krivo?.ej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010; and Damnjanovic v. Serbia, no. 5222/07, § 80-82, 18 November 2008).
  • EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

    McFARLANE v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    The Court notes that the proceedings which the applicant instituted in order to obtain redress for the situation about which she complained to the Court were pending before the Constitutional Court for three and a half years without any possibility of the case being dealt with as a priority policy, a lapse of time which cannot clearly be reconcilable with the general speediness requirement (see, in general context, Scordino, cited above, § 202; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 123, 10 September 2010, with further references; Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 37, 3 July 2008; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, § 56-57 and 65, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); and Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 55, 10 April 2008; see, also, in respect of a preventive and compensatory nature of a remedy in context of Article 8, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 136-137, 15 January 2015; Macready v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 48; Bergmann v. the Czech Republic, no. 8857/08, 27 October 2011, §§ 45-46 with further references, and Mansour v. Slovakia, 60399/15, §§ 41-42, 21 November 2017).
  • EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 21071/05

    WASSERMAN v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    The Court notes that the proceedings which the applicant instituted in order to obtain redress for the situation about which she complained to the Court were pending before the Constitutional Court for three and a half years without any possibility of the case being dealt with as a priority policy, a lapse of time which cannot clearly be reconcilable with the general speediness requirement (see, in general context, Scordino, cited above, § 202; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 123, 10 September 2010, with further references; Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 37, 3 July 2008; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, § 56-57 and 65, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); and Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 55, 10 April 2008; see, also, in respect of a preventive and compensatory nature of a remedy in context of Article 8, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 136-137, 15 January 2015; Macready v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 48; Bergmann v. the Czech Republic, no. 8857/08, 27 October 2011, §§ 45-46 with further references, and Mansour v. Slovakia, 60399/15, §§ 41-42, 21 November 2017).
  • EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 60399/15

    MANSOUR v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10
    The Court notes that the proceedings which the applicant instituted in order to obtain redress for the situation about which she complained to the Court were pending before the Constitutional Court for three and a half years without any possibility of the case being dealt with as a priority policy, a lapse of time which cannot clearly be reconcilable with the general speediness requirement (see, in general context, Scordino, cited above, § 202; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 123, 10 September 2010, with further references; Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 37, 3 July 2008; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, § 56-57 and 65, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); and Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 55, 10 April 2008; see, also, in respect of a preventive and compensatory nature of a remedy in context of Article 8, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 136-137, 15 January 2015; Macready v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 48; Bergmann v. the Czech Republic, no. 8857/08, 27 October 2011, §§ 45-46 with further references, and Mansour v. Slovakia, 60399/15, §§ 41-42, 21 November 2017).
  • EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 27966/06

    SOBOTA-GAJIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  • EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 42559/08

    KRIVOSEJ v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 12.10.2000 - 43440/98

    JANKOVIC c. CROATIE

  • EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 9143/08

    SIKIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 35242/04

    M.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 32264/03

    BUTKOVIC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

    NARDONE c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 39177/05

    V.A.M. v. SERBIA

  • EGMR, 02.03.2005 - 71916/01

    Entschädigungs- und Ausgleichsleistungsgesetzes über die Wiedergutmachung von

  • EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 17117/06

    NIKOLAC v. CROATIA

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