Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FELBAB v. SERBIA

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  Article 8 includes for parents a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (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; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).

  This means that it is essential that child custody cases be dealt with speedily (see Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-VIII), as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between children and parents who do not live with them (see, mutatis mutandis, Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 74, ECHR 2003-VII, and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I), although a delay at some stage may be tolerated if the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be deemed excessive (see, for example, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A no. 71).

• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78028/01

  PINI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  Further, the Court notes that, irrespective of whether enforcement is to be carried out against a private or State actor, it is up to the State to take all necessary steps to execute a final court judgment as well as to, in so doing, ensure the effective participation of its entire apparatus, failing which it will fall short of the requirements contained in Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the child custody context, Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V).
• EKMR, 10.02.1967 - 2724/66

  X. v. THE GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  61164/00 and 18589/02, ECHR 2003-II, as well as Stamoulakatos v. the United Kingdom, no. 27567/95, Commission decision of 9 April 1997; L.R. v. Austria, cited above; X. v. Germany, no. 2724/66, Commission decision of 10 February 1967; X. and Y. v. Germany, no. 2625/65, Commission decision of 30 September 1968, Reports 28, pp.

 
• EKMR, 30.09.1968 - 2625/65

  X. et Y. contre la REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  61164/00 and 18589/02, ECHR 2003-II, as well as Stamoulakatos v. the United Kingdom, no. 27567/95, Commission decision of 9 April 1997; L.R. v. Austria, cited above; X. v. Germany, no. 2724/66, Commission decision of 10 February 1967; X. and Y. v. Germany, no. 2625/65, Commission decision of 30 September 1968, Reports 28, pp.
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  The legitimate interest of the applicant to develop and sustain a bond with his children and their own long-term interest to the same effect were thus not duly considered (see, mutatis mutandis, Görgülü v. Germany, no. 74969/01, § 46, 26 February 2004), which is why the applicant has suffered a separate breach of the right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, § 91).
• EGMR, 04.02.2003 - 61164/00

  DURINGER et AUTRES et GRUNGE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  61164/00 and 18589/02, ECHR 2003-II, as well as Stamoulakatos v. the United Kingdom, no. 27567/95, Commission decision of 9 April 1997; L.R. v. Austria, cited above; X. v. Germany, no. 2724/66, Commission decision of 10 February 1967; X. and Y. v. Germany, no. 2625/65, Commission decision of 30 September 1968, Reports 28, pp.
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 7984/77

  PRETTO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 14011/07

  This means that it is essential that child custody cases be dealt with speedily (see Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-VIII), as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between children and parents who do not live with them (see, mutatis mutandis, Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 74, ECHR 2003-VII, and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I), although a delay at some stage may be tolerated if the overall duration of the proceedings cannot be deemed excessive (see, for example, Pretto and Others v. Italy, 8 December 1983, § 37, Series A no. 71).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen, cited above, § 58; Nuutinen, cited above, §§ 127-28; Glaser, cited above, § 66; Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 59, 24 April 2003; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, § 56, 23 June 2005; and Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 76, 28 May 2013; see also the cases against Serbia, V.A.M. v. Serbia, cited above, §§ 140-44; Tomic, cited above, §§ 100-02; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; Krivo?.ej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010; and Damnjanovic v. Serbia, no. 5222/07, § 80-82, 18 November 2008).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 53565/13

  MITOVI v.

  In this context, the adequacy of a measure is to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation, as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the non-resident parent (see Krivosej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; and Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 74, ECHR 2003-VII).
• EGMR, 25.11.2014 - 31855/03

  LIEPINS v. LATVIA

  The Court reiterates that, whilst the use of offensive language in proceedings before it is undoubtedly inappropriate, an application may only be rejected as abusive in extraordinary circumstances (see, for example, Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 56, 14 April 2009, and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X).

 
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 68445/10

  OLIVEIRA MODESTO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  In relation to the Government's argument that the applicants abused the rights set out in the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a), the Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as an abuse of process in extraordinary circumstances, notably when there is persistent use of insulting or provocative language by an applicant (see Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 56, 14 April 2009), when the application was knowingly based on untrue facts, or when incomplete and thus misleading information concerning the very core of the case was submitted to the Court (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  VELJKOV v. SERBIA

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, §§ 127-128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Glaser v. the United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 66, 19 September 2000; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Tomic v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 100-102, 26 June 2007; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; and Krivosej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 67081/13

  MATEUS PEREIRA DA SILVA v. PORTUGAL

  In relation to the Government's argument that the applicant abused the rights set forth in the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, the Court reiterates that an application may only be rejected as abusive in extraordinary circumstances, notably when there is persistent use of insulting or provocative language by an applicant (see Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 56, 14 April 2009), when the application was knowingly based on untrue facts or when incomplete and thus misleading information concerning the very core of the case was submitted to the Court (see Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014).