Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FELDMAN v. UKRAINE (NO. 2)

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

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Feldman v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09

  It is therefore not open to the Court to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection based on it (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09

  The Court reiterates that any interference with an individual's right to respect for his private and family life will constitute a breach of Article 8, unless it was "in accordance with the law", pursued a legitimate aim or aims under paragraph 2, and was "necessary in a democratic society" in the sense that it was proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (see, among other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 45, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09

  The cardinal issue that arises is whether the above interference is justifiable under paragraph 2 of Article 8. In particular, if it is not to contravene Article 8, the interference must be "in accordance with the law", pursue a legitimate aim and be necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve that aim (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, Series A no. 61, § 84, and Petra v. Romania, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII, § 36).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11105/84

  HUVIG c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, § 26, respectively).
• EGMR, 24.04.1990 - 11801/85

  KRUSLIN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 42921/09

  This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France and Huvig v. France, 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A, § 27, and Series A no. 176-B, § 26, respectively).

• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 75734/12

  RAZVOZZHAYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE AND UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA

  It further reiterates that the refusal of leave to attend a relative's funeral constitutes an interference with the right to respect for family life (see Schemkamper v. France, no. 75833/01, § 31, 18 October 2005; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 92, 6 December 2007; and Feldman v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 42921/09, § 32, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 54558/15

  VETSEV c. BULGARIE

  Dans ces circonstances, et sans vouloir spéculer sur la décision à laquelle auraient abouti les autorités internes si un tel examen avait été réalisé, la Cour estime qu'il n'a pas été démontré que l'ingérence dans le droit à la vie privée et familiale du requérant était « nécessaire dans une société démocratique'(voir, pour un cas similaire, Feldman c. Ukraine (no 2), no 42921/09, § 35, 12 janvier 2012).
• EGMR - 19340/19 (anhängig)

  DE CANDIA v. ITALY

  Was the refusal to allow the applicant exceptional leave from house arrest to attend his father's funeral compatible with his right to respect for his private and family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see Vetsev v. Bulgaria, no. 54558/15, §§ 21-25, 2 May 2019; Feldman v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 42921/09, §§ 33-35, 12 January 2012; and Ploski v. Poland, no. 26761/95, §§ 35-39, 12 November 2002)?.
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 15669/13

  KOSENKO v. RUSSIA

  It further reiterates that the refusal of leave to attend a relative's funeral constitutes an interference with the right to respect for family life (see Schemkamper v. France, no. 75833/01, § 31, 18 October 2005; Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 92, 6 December 2007; and Feldman v. Ukraine (no. 2), no. 42921/09, § 32, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 28.02.2017 - 78344/14

  VONICA c. ROUMANIE

  Pour les besoins de la présente affaire, la Cour observe que, bien qu'elles n'aient pas invoqué l'absence de base légale pour le droit réclamé par la requérante (voir, a contrario, Feldman c. Ukraine (no 2), no 42921/09, § 35, 12 janvier 2012), les autorités nationales ont néanmoins beaucoup hésité quant à cette base légale.