Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  H.P. v. DENMARK

  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  H.P. v. DENMARK

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

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EKMR, 05.10.1972 - 5212/71

  X. v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see, among others, Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, no. 44230/06, § 73, ECHR 2015; mutatis mutandis, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 339, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011; Kuduzovic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 60723/00, 17 March 2005; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; and X. v. Austria, no. 5212/71, Commission decision of 5 October 1972, DR 43, p. 69).
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 60723/00

  KUDUZOVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see, among others, Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, no. 44230/06, § 73, ECHR 2015; mutatis mutandis, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 339, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011; Kuduzovic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 60723/00, 17 March 2005; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; and X. v. Austria, no. 5212/71, Commission decision of 5 October 1972, DR 43, p. 69).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 53124/09

  GENOVESE v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see, among others, Petropavlovskis v. Latvia, no. 44230/06, § 73, ECHR 2015; mutatis mutandis, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 339, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011; Kuduzovic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 60723/00, 17 March 2005; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; and X. v. Austria, no. 5212/71, Commission decision of 5 October 1972, DR 43, p. 69).

• EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 1464/14

  LUCZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  The Court also reiterates that it is not required, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (see H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 78, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 1752/14

  DEBOWSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The Court also reiterates that it is not required, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (see H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 78, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 14656/15

  VADALÀ v. ITALY

  The Court also recalls that it is not required, for the purposes of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, that the national authorities acknowledge a violation of the Convention (see paragraph 28 above) or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter, is also granted compensation (see H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 78, 13 December 2016).

 
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 31469/08

  DANILEVICH v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates in this respect that according to its established case-law under Article 37 § 1 (b), it is not a requirement that the Government acknowledge a violation of the Convention or that the applicant, in addition to having obtained a resolution of the matter complained of directly, is also granted compensation (see H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 78, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  HOTI v. CROATIA

  In order to ascertain whether that provision applies to the present case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 97, ECHR 2007-I, and H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 66, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

  SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, which require the continued examination of the application, exist when such examination would contribute to elucidating, safeguarding and developing the standards of protection under the Convention (see, for example, H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 85, 13 December 2016, and, a contrario, Konstantin Markin v. Russia [GC], no. 30078/06, § 90, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).