Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.V. v. SLOVENIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  A.V. v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 878/13
• EGMR, 04.06.2020 - 878/13

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 878/13

  The Court, master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, ECHR 2018), will examine these complaints from the standpoint of Article 8 of the Convention alone (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I, and Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, nos.
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 9733/05

  EBERHARD AND M. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 878/13

  8673/05 and 9733/05, § 111, 1 December 2009).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 878/13

  Secondly, relying on the Court's case-law in Elsholz v. Germany ([GC], no. 25735/94, ECHR 2000-VIII) the applicant maintained that the domestic courts should have appointed an expert psychologist to assess the need for contact between him and his children.

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 878/13

  What is therefore decisive is whether the domestic authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate contact that can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, mutatis mutandis, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 101, 15 January 2015, and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 16899/13

  KOCHEROV AND SERGEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 878/13

  It follows from these considerations that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding custody and contact issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their discretionary powers (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Kocherov and Sergeyeva v. Russia, no. 16899/13, § 93, 29 March 2016).
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13

  K.B. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 878/13

  While the Court's case-law requires children's views to be taken into account, those views are not necessarily immutable and children's objections, which must be given due weight, are not necessarily sufficient to override the parents" interests, especially in having regular contact with their child (see K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, § 143, 14 March 2017).

• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 23641/17

  PISICA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court has repeatedly held that in cases concerning parental contact rights, the State has in principle an obligation to take measures with a view to reuniting parents with their children, and an obligation to facilitate such reunions, in so far as the interests of the child dictate that everything must be done to preserve personal relations (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen v. Finland, no. 19823/92, § 55, 23 September 1994, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I, and A.V. v. Slovenia, no. 878/13, § 73, 9 April 2019).