Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HERNEHULT v. NORWAY

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HERNEHULT v. NORWAY

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

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 14652/16

  As to the provisions of the Child Welfare Act, the Court reiterates that the interpretation and application of domestic law is primarily for the national authorities (see, among many other authorities, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96 and 2 others, § 49, ECHR 2001-II).

• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 20102/19

  HERNEHULT v. NORWAY

  The applicant has two children who are in foster care since November 2013, B (born in 2005) and C (born in 2007) (see Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 6-41, 10 March 2020).

  In its judgment pertaining to that application, the Court concluded that the authorities had not shown that they had fulfilled their obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in connection with the proceedings at issue in that case (see Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 76-77, 10 March 2020).

• EGMR, 10.12.2021 - 15379/16

  ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY

  Les principes généraux applicables aux mesures de protection de l'enfance sont exposés dans l'arrêt rendu par la Grande Chambre dans l'affaire Strand Lobben et autres, précité, §§ 202-213 (voir aussi, entre autres, K.O. et V.M. c. Norvège, no 64808/16, §§ 59-60, 19 novembre 2019 ; A.S. c. Norvège, no 60371/15, §§ 59-61, 17 décembre 2019 ; Cînta c. Roumanie, no 3891/19, § 26, 18 février 2020 ; Y.I. c. Russie, no 68868/14, §§ 75-78, 25 février 2020 ; Hernehult c. Norvège, no 14652/16, §§ 61-63, 10 mars 2020 ; Pedersen et autres c. Norvège, no 39710/15, §§ 60-62, 10 mars 2020, et M.L. c. Norvège, précité, §§ 77-81).
• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 38082/21

  S.G. AND M.C. v. NORWAY

  In so far as the applicants' complaint under Article 8 of the Convention also encompasses the contact arrangements that were decided, the Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see, for cases where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022; see also, for cases where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred, Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020; and Abdi Ibrahim, cited above, § 152).

 
• EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 1461/21

  R.A. v. NORWAY

  In connection with the applicant's complaint regarding contact rights, the Court also bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see, for cases where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022; see also, for cases where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred, Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020; and Abdi Ibrahim, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 36825/21

  M.R. AND K.G. v. NORWAY

  In so far as the applicants' complaint under Article 8 of the Convention also encompasses the contact arrangements that had been decided, the Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see, for cases where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022; see also, for cases where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred, Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020; and Abdi Ibrahim, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 36588/22

  A.N. v. NORWAY

  In so far as the applicant's complaint under Article 8 of the Convention also encompasses the contact arrangements that were decided, the Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see, for cases where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022; see also, for cases where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred, Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020; and Abdi Ibrahim, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 12.03.2024 - 19626/21

  M.N. v. NORWAY

  Turning to the applicant's submission before the Court that the limited contact that had been allowed for had not facilitated family reunification, the Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see, for cases where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022; see also, for cases where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred, Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020; and Abdi Ibrahim, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 45889/18

  A.L. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  The principles have since been reiterated and applied in, inter alia, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway (no. 64808/16, §§ 59-60, 19 November 2019); A.S. v. Norway (no. 60371/15, §§ 59-61, 17 December 2019); Pedersen and Others v. Norway (no. 39710/15, § 60-62, 10 March 2020); Hernehult v. Norway (no. 14652/16, § 61-63, 10 March 2020); M.L. v. Norway (no. 64639/16, §§ 77-81, 22 December 2020); and Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway ([GC], no. 15379/16, § 145, 10 December 2021).
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 39769/17

  K.F. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  The Court has since reiterated and applied those principles in, inter alia, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway (no. 64808/16, §§ 59-60, 19 November 2019), A.S. v. Norway (no. 60371/15, §§ 59-61, 17 December 2019), Hernehult v. Norway (no. 14652/16, §§ 61-63, 10 March 2020), Pedersen and Others v. Norway (no. 39710/15, §§ 60-62, 10 March 2020), M.L. v. Norway (no. 64639/16, §§ 77-81, 22 December 2020), Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway ([GC] no. 15379/16, § 145, 10 December 2021), A.L. and Others v. Norway (no. 45889/18, §§ 43-44, 20 January 2022), E.M. and Others v. Norway (no. 53471/17, §§ 52 and 54, 20 January 2022) and Roengkasettakorn Eriksson v. Sweden (no. 21574/16, § 70, 19 May 2022).
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 35858/21

  H.B. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  The Court also bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see, for cases where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation, K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022; see also, for cases where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred, Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020; and Abdi Ibrahim, cited above, § 152).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 49993/21

  T.G. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 47015/21

  T.H. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 27186/21

  H.H. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 14301/19

  A.G. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 39771/19

  A.H. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 12825/20

  ?.N. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 53471/17

  E.M. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 42796/20

  T.H. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 44598/19

  R.A. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 15784/19

  S.S. AND J.H. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 21574/16

  ROENGKASETTAKORN ERIKSSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 63307/17

  D.R. v. NORWAY