Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
CRISTESCU v. ROMANIA
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Cristescu v. Romania
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92
HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07
The Government concluded by referring to the Court's case-law, which underlined that where contact with the parent appeared to threaten the best interests of the child or interfere with those rights, it was for the national authorities to strike a fair balance between them (they cited Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, 24 April 2003; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A; and Kallo v. Hungary, (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003).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, 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, 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 one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010).
- EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
KEEGAN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07
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, 02.11.2010 - 14565/05
NISTOR c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07
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, 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, 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 one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010).
- EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07
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, 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, 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 one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010). - EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07
PLAZA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07
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, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07
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, 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, 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 one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010).
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11
KRASICKI v. POLAND
In so doing, the Court will also take into consideration the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law (see also D. v. Poland (dec.), no. 8215/02, 14 March 2006, and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 61, 10 January 2012).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, 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, 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 one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).
- EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10
P.K. v. POLAND
In doing so, the Court will also take into consideration the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law (see also D. v. Poland (dec.), no. 8215/02, 14 March 2006, and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 61, 10 January 2012).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, 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, 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 one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).
- EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 32407/13
KACPER NOWAKOWSKI v. POLAND
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, 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, 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 one of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 61, 10 January 2012; Prizzia v. Hungary, no. 20255/12, § 35, 11 June 2013; P.K. v. Poland, no. 43123/10, § 86, 10 June 2014).
- EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 2210/12
P.F. v. POLAND
The Court's case-law has consistently held that Article 8 includes both the right for a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take measures to facilitate that 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 as to results, but one as to means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré, cited above, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012). - EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 21823/12
STASIK v. POLAND
The Court's case-law has consistently held that Article 8 includes both the right for a parent to have measures taken with a view to his or her being reunited with the child and an obligation for the national authorities to take measures to facilitate that 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 as to results, but one as to means (see, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré, cited above, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012). - EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 67304/12
RAILEANU v. ROMANIA
However, the State's obligation is not one as to results, but one as to means (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; Hokkanen, cited above, § 55; Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012). - EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 22731/11
FERNÁNDEZ CABANILLAS v. SPAIN
The obligation of the national authorities to take measures to facilitate contact by a non-custodial parent with children after divorce is not, however, absolute (see, mutatis mutandis, Hokkanen, cited above, § 58, and Cârstoiu v. Romania (dec.), no. 20660/10, § 42, 7 May 2013); moreover, it is an obligation of means, and not one of result (see Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 69, 10 January 2012).