Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KRASICKI v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Krasicki v. Poland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KRASICKI v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07

  CRISTESCU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  In so doing, the Court will also take into consideration the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law (see also D. v. Poland (dec.), no. 8215/02, 14 March 2006, and Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 61, 10 January 2012).

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into care and the implementation of care measures (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).

• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 14565/05

  NISTOR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).

 
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  In both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the State's discretion (see, amongst other authorities, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290, and Siemianowski v. Poland, no. 45972/99, § 97, 6 September 2005).
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into care and the implementation of care measures (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  In so doing, it must determine whether the reasons purporting to justify any measures taken with regard to an applicant's enjoyment of his right to respect for family life are relevant and sufficient (see, amongst other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden, 24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130, and Wojciech Nowak v. Poland, no. 11118/06, § 45, 8 June 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 17254/11

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but one of means (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; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX and also Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010; Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 57, 10 January 2012).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 31022/20

  TZIOUMAKA v. GREECE

  The relevant authorities, faced with such obstruction, did not ensure that timely and suitable preparatory measures were put in place and carried through (see, similarly, Aneva and Others, cited above, § 116, and Zavrel v. the Czech Republic, no. 14044/05, § 52, 18 January 2007; contrast Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, § 93, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 26504/20

  ANAGNOSTAKIS v. GREECE

  The Court is aware of the fact that contact disputes are by their very nature extremely sensitive for all the parties concerned, and it is not necessarily an easy task for the domestic authorities to ensure enforcement of a court order where one or both parents' behaviour is far from constructive (see Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, § 90, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 55351/17

  LUCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The key consideration is whether those authorities have taken all the steps necessary to facilitate contact as can reasonably be required of them in the particular circumstances of each case (see also Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, §§ 86-87, 15 April 2014).

 
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 8000/21

  JURISIC v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  The Court is aware of the fact that contact disputes are by their very nature extremely sensitive for all the parties concerned, and it is not necessarily an easy task for the domestic authorities to ensure enforcement of a court order where one or both parents' behaviour is far from constructive (see Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, § 90, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 45174/20

  FILIC v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  The Centre's decision to stay the enforcement cannot be considered to constitute an abuse of the authorities' powers of discretion (see, mutatis mutandis, Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, § 99, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 5504/20

  K.Y. v. RUSSIA

  The key consideration is whether those authorities have taken all the steps necessary to facilitate contact as can reasonably be required of them in the particular circumstances of each case (see also Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, §§ 86-87, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR, 04.04.2023 - 6147/18

  BOCSA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The key consideration is whether those authorities have taken all the steps necessary to facilitate contact as can reasonably be required of them in the particular circumstances of each case (see also Krasicki v. Poland, no. 17254/11, §§ 86-87, 15 April 2014).