Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEONOV v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LEONOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 5 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 13553/09

  GRUZDEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

  There were many examples in domestic practice of a residence order being granted in favour of the father (they referred, in particular, to the case of Gruzdeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 13553/09, § 71, 8 July 2014).

  However, in this sphere, the Court's review is not limited to ascertaining whether a respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; it must determine whether the reasons adduced by the domestic courts in child residence proceedings were relevant and sufficient (see Gruzdeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 13553/09, § 71, 8 July 2014).

  Accordingly, the domestic courts failed to safeguard the Convention right in question adequately, by omitting to duly consider factors that were relevant under the Convention (see, by contrast, Gruzdeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 13553/09, §§ 72-77, 8 July 2014, and Malinin v. Russia, no. 70135/14, § 71, 12 December 2017, where the domestic courts had carefully assessed those and other factors in their decisions).

• EGMR, 24.06.1993 - 14518/89

  SCHULER-ZGRAGGEN c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

  Very weighty reasons need to be put forward before a difference in treatment on the ground of sex can be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263; Zaunegger v. Germany, no. 22028/04, § 51, 3 December 2009; and Buchs v. Switzerland, no. 9929/12, § 67, 27 May 2014).

  The Court has repeatedly held that the advancement of gender equality is today a major goal in the member States of the Council of Europe and very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference in treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention (see, among many other cases, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 24 June 1993, § 67, Series A no. 263; Zaunegger, cited above, § 51; and Buchs v. Switzerland, no. 9929/12, § 67, 27 May 2014).

• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 70135/14

  MALININ v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

  Accordingly, the domestic courts failed to safeguard the Convention right in question adequately, by omitting to duly consider factors that were relevant under the Convention (see, by contrast, Gruzdeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 13553/09, §§ 72-77, 8 July 2014, and Malinin v. Russia, no. 70135/14, § 71, 12 December 2017, where the domestic courts had carefully assessed those and other factors in their decisions).
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 60092/12

  Z.J. v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

  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 child custody and access issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); C. v. Finland, no. 18249/02, § 52, 9 May 2006; and Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 96, 29 April 2014).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

  The Court further notes that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  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, 13.12.2022 - 44870/19

  AGARWAL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  To that end the Court must ascertain whether the domestic courts conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors, in particular of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature, and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with a constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for the child (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 139, ECHR 2010, and Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, § 64, 10 April 2018).
• EGMR, 01.12.2022 - 73247/14

  M.H. v. POLAND

  Other general principles regarding positive obligations under Article 8 in the specific context of child custody dispute are set out in Leonov v. Russia (no. 77180/11, §§ 64-68, 10 April 2018, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 28.04.2020 - 896/16

  S.L. ET A.L. c. ITALIE

  La Cour reconnaît que les autorités et les juridictions nationales sont souvent confrontées à une tâche extrêmement difficile lorsqu'elles prennent des décisions concernant la garde de mineurs (Leonov c. Russie, no 77180/11, § 71, 10 avril 2018).
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 3018/20

  B.G. v. CROATIA

  Given that the national authorities are in principle better placed than an international judge to evaluate the evidence before them, it is not the Court's task to take their place in establishing and assessing the facts and deciding what is in the best interests of the child in the present case (see Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, § 72, 10 April 2018).
• EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 21243/17

  SIRVINSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  To that end the Court must ascertain whether the domestic courts conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors - in particular of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature - and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with a constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for the child (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 139, ECHR 2010, and Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, § 64, 10 April 2018).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 22076/20

  VYALSHINA v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that the decision at issue was reached following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was placed in a position enabling her to put forward all arguments in support of her position and she also had access to all relevant information that was relied on by the courts (compare to Cvetkovic v. Serbia, no. 42707/10, §§ 56-65, 7 February 2017; Malinin v. Russia, no. 70135/14, §§ 67-78, 12 December 2017; and Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, §§ 69-77, 10 April 2018).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 46413/18

  SAMOYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that the decision at issue was reached following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was placed in a position enabling her to put forward all arguments in support of her position and she also had access to all relevant information that was relied on by the courts (compare to Cvetkovic v. Serbia, no. 42707/10, §§ 56-65, 7 February 2017; Malinin v. Russia, no. 70135/14, §§ 67-78, 12 December 2017; and Leonov v. Russia, no. 77180/11, §§ 69-77, 10 April 2018).