Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STANKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 7205/02

  It is therefore not appropriate to award any compensation under that head (see also Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, § 125, 26 July 2007, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 130, ECHR 1999-III ).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 7205/02

  The Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their powers, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their margin of appreciation (see, mutatis mutandis, Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55, and Elsholz v. Germany, no. 25735/94, ECHR 2000-VIII, p. 363, § 48).
• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 7205/02

  The scope of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the national authorities in similar cases will depend not only on the nature of the aim of the restriction but also on the nature of the right involved (see Gillow v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 November 1986, Series A no. 109, p. 22, § 55).

• EGMR, 22.03.2012 - 30078/06

  Konstantin Markin ./. Russland

  41138/98 and 64320/01, §§ 107 (g) and 110, ECHR 2005-VII, and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 263-264, 21 January 2011) or under Article 8 (Marzari v. Italy (dec.), no. 36448/97, 4 May 1999, with regard to an "individual suffering from a severe disease", and Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, §§ 60-62, 9 October 2007, which finds the reasoning of the Constitutional Court "convincing").
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 31022/20

  TZIOUMAKA v. GREECE

  The Court reiterates that it is not its role to substitute itself for the national authorities in the assessment of what specific measures were necessary to be undertaken in the circumstances, given that those authorities are in principle better placed to take such decisions (see Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, § 59, 9 October 2007).
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 76202/16

  F.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The principle that any person at risk of losing his or her home should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 36 above) has primarily been applied in cases where applicants had been living in State-owned or socially-owned accommodation (see, for example, Connors, cited above; Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, 9 October 2007; McCann cited above; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009, Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay, cited above; Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, 21 June 2011; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; Pinnock and Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31673/11, 24 September 2013; Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia, no. 66610/10, 14 March 2017; Shvidkiye v. Russia, no. 69820/10, 25 July 2017; and Panyushkiny v. Russia, no. 47056/11, 21 November 2017).

 
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24546/09

  ZAHI v. CROATIA

  Therefore the judgment by which the contract was annulled could not itself serve as grounds for the applicant's eviction (see paragraph 45 above; and compare, by contrast, Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, § 57, 9 October 2007; Ä?osic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, § 18, 15 January 2009; Paulic, cited above, § 38; Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, § 59, 21 June 2011; Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 62, 29 May 2012; and Brezec v. Croatia, no. 7177/10, § 40, 18 July 2013).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 69037/10

  PELIPENKO v. RUSSIA

  It has not been disputed between the parties that the eviction amounted to an interference with the applicants" right to respect for their home (see Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, § 57, 9 October 2007, and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, § 62, 29 May 2012).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 30856/03

  KRYVITSKA AND KRYVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  In particular, even where the lawful right to occupation of the premises has come to an end, an individual should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, §§ 60-63, 9 October 2007; McCann, cited above, § 50; Ä?osic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 21-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 42-45, 22 October 2009).
• EGMR, 12.05.2009 - 28456/03

  KORELC v. SLOVENIA

  The relevance of Article 8 cannot be denied in view of the judgment of the Ljubljana Local Court ordering the applicant's eviction, which judgment was subsequently upheld by all levels of jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that it has not yet been executed (see, mutatis mutandis, Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, § 57, 9 October 2007).