Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  P.K. v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  P.K. v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  P.K. v. POLAND

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

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07

  CRISTESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10

  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, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).

  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, 02.11.2010 - 14565/05

  NISTOR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10

  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, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07

  PLAZA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10

  Other important factors to be taken into account in proceedings concerning children are that time takes on a particular significance, as there is always a danger that any procedural delay will result in the de facto determination of the issue before the court and that the decision-making procedure should provide the requisite protection of parental interests (see W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, §§ 62-64, Series A no. 121, and Plaza v. Poland, no. 18830/07, § 74, 25 January 2011).
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10

  In so doing, it must determine whether the reasons purporting to justify any measures taken with regard to an applicant's enjoyment of his right to respect for family life are relevant and sufficient (see, amongst other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden, 24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130, and Wojciech Nowak v. Poland, no. 11118/06, § 45, 8 June 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 43123/10

  In both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the State's margin of appreciation (see, amongst other authorities, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290, and Siemianowski v. Poland, no. 45972/99, § 97, 6 September 2005).

• 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, 28.09.2023 - 4065/21

  BELUCH v. POLAND

  The general principles concerning respect for family life, positive obligations of the State and the importance of the interests of a child in matters concerning child custody were summarised in the judgment in P.K. v. Poland, no. 43123/10, §§ 81-86, 10 June 2014, and in Malec v. Poland, no. 28623/12, §§ 66-67, 28 June 2016.
• EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 11536/19

  CHIZHOV v. RUSSIA

  It follows that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding 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 margin of appreciation (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 48, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); Buchs v. Switzerland, no. 9929/12, § 49, 27 May 2014; and P.K. v. Poland, no. 43123/10, § 84, 10 June 2014).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 46855/20

  TOMKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  The relevant general principles concerning respect for family life, positive obligations of the State and the importance of the interests of a child in matters concerning child custody were summarised in the judgment in P.K. v. Poland (no. 43123/10, §§ 81-86, 10 June 2014).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45142/14

  KRAPIVIN v. RUSSIA

  It follows that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding 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 margin of appreciation (see, inter alia, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 48, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); and, more recently, Buchs v. Switzerland, no. 9929/12, § 49, 27 May 2014, and P.K. v. Poland, no. 43123/10, § 84, 10 June 2014).