Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2017,6117
EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13 (https://dejure.org/2017,6117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14.03.2017 - 36216/13 (https://dejure.org/2017,6117)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 14. März 2017 - 36216/13 (https://dejure.org/2017,6117)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,6117) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (36)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

    BALL v. ANDORRA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13
    As stated in the judgment, in a case like the present one it is the Court's task to examine whether the domestic authorities took all the necessary steps to facilitate contact that could reasonably be demanded in the specific circumstances of the case (see paragraph 142 of the judgment, and, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ball v. Andorra, no. 40628/10, § 49, 11 December 2012; Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 101, 15 January 2015; and Ribic v. Croatia, no. 27148/12, § 93, 2 April 2015).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

    NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13
    As stated in the judgment, in a case like the present one it is the Court's task to examine whether the domestic authorities took all the necessary steps to facilitate contact that could reasonably be demanded in the specific circumstances of the case (see paragraph 142 of the judgment, and, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ball v. Andorra, no. 40628/10, § 49, 11 December 2012; Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 101, 15 January 2015; and Ribic v. Croatia, no. 27148/12, § 93, 2 April 2015).
  • EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 76836/01

    KIMLYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13
    Having regard to the specific circumstances of the present case which concerns an evolving situation, and taking into account that the case is still pending, the Court does not consider it necessary to indicate individual measures that the State has to adopt for the execution of the present judgment (compare Kimlya and Others v. Russia, nos. 76836/01 and 32782/03, § 109, ECHR 2009).
     
  • EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 26376/95

    LAYLLE v. GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13
    What is more, if a court would base a decision on the views of children who are palpably unable to form and articulate an opinion as to their wishes - for example, because of a loyalty conflict and/or their exposure to the alienating behaviour of one parent -such a decision could run contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Laylle v. Germany, no. 26376/95, Commission decision of 4 September 1996, unreported).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13
    The Court also notes that it is its standard practice to rule that an award in relation to costs and expenses is to be paid directly to the lawyers upon the applicant's request to this end (see, for example, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, §§ 174-75, ECHR 2005-VII).
  • EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

    MIKULIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13
    The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 73, ECHR 2002-I), considers that in the circumstances of the present case the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention must be regarded as absorbed by the complaint under Article 8 thereof.
  • EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 23641/17

    PISICA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

    However, while the Court's case-law requires children's views to be taken into account, those views are not necessarily immutable, and children's objections, which must be given due weight, are not necessarily sufficient to override the parents" interests, especially their interests in having regular contact with their child (see K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, § 143, 14 March 2017).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2021 - 47220/19

    A.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    23280/08 and 2334/10, §§ 39-42, 6 October 2016; and K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, §§ 109-10, 14 March 2017).

    Having referred to Sahin v. Germany (dec.) (no. 30943/96, 10 December 2000), Moog v. Germany (nos. 23280/08 and 2334/10, §§ 39-42, 6 October 2016), and K.B. and Others v. Croatia (no. 36216/13, §§ 109-10, 14 March 2017), the Court reached the conclusion that the applicant did not have locus standi to act on behalf of the children.

    23280/08 and 2334/10, §§ 39-42, 6 October 2016; and K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, §§ 109-10, 14 March 2017).".

  • EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

    JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

    The relevant provisions of domestic law in force at the material time are set out in K.B. and Others v. Croatia (no. 36216/13, §§ 96 and 101-06, 14 March 2017).

    The relevant principles regarding the State's positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention in cases concerning enforcement of contact rights have been summarised in Ribic v. Croatia (no. 27148/12, §§ 88-89 and 92-95, 2 April 2015), and K.B. and Others v. Croatia (no. 36216/13, §§ 143-44, 14 March 2017).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht