Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.I. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 65092/09

  While the authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of taking a child into care, in particular where an emergency situation arises, the Court must still be satisfied in the particular case that there existed circumstances justifying the removal of the child, and it is for the respondent State to establish that a careful assessment of the impact of the proposed care measure on the parents and the child, as well as of the possible alternatives to taking the child into public care, was carried out prior to implementation of such a measure (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 166, ECHR 2001-VII; and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 67, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 65092/09

  In determining whether the impugned measures were "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify these measures were relevant and sufficient for the purpose of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 65092/09

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 of the Convention and, whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 139, ECHR 2000-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84

  NIELSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 65092/09

  The Court points out that, in principle, a person who is not entitled under domestic law to represent another person may nevertheless, in certain circumstances, act before the Court in the name of the other person (see, mutatis mutandis, Nielsen v. Denmark, 28 November 1988, §§ 56-57, Series A no. 144).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 65092/09

  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 for the regulation of the public care of children and the rights of parents whose children have been taken into care, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, for instance, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; and Johansen v. Norway, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 65092/09

  It must be borne in mind that the national authorities have the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250).