Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.R. AND L.R. v. ESTONIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

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

• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  (ii) The positive obligations that Article 8 of the Convention imposes on the States with respect to reuniting parents with their children must therefore be interpreted in the light of the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (see Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 72, ECHR 2003-VII, and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 95, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 47457/99

  Bestimmung des Aufenthaltsorts gemeinsamer Kinder nach Trennung der Eltern; Eine …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  47457/99 and 47458/99, ECHR 2000-IV; Bianchi, cited above, § 92; and Carlson, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  (v) "The child's interests" are primarily considered to be the following two: to have his or her ties with his or her family maintained, unless it is proved that such ties are undesirable, and to have his or her development in a sound environment ensured (see, among many other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Marsálek v. the Czech Republic, no. 8153/04, § 71, 4 April 2006).

 
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 14600/05

  ESKINAZI ET CHELOUCHE c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  (vii) In addition, the Court must ensure that the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the impugned measures by the domestic court was fair and allowed those concerned to present their case fully (see Tiemann, cited above, and Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14600/05, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 8153/04

  MARSÁLEK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  (v) "The child's interests" are primarily considered to be the following two: to have his or her ties with his or her family maintained, unless it is proved that such ties are undesirable, and to have his or her development in a sound environment ensured (see, among many other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Marsálek v. the Czech Republic, no. 8153/04, § 71, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  (iv) In this area the decisive issue is whether a fair balance between the competing interests at stake - those of the child, of the two parents, and of public order - has been struck, within the margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007), bearing in mind, however, that the child's best interests must be the primary consideration (see, to that effect, Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.10.2010 - 25437/08

  RABAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  They referred to the Court's findings in the cases of Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, ECHR 2010; Raban v. Romania, no. 25437/08, 26 October 2010; Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, 12 July 2011; and X v. Latvia, no. 27853/09, 13 December 2011.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 13420/12

  To that end they enjoy a certain margin of appreciation, which remains subject, however, to a European supervision whereby the Court reviews under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of that power (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A, and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 65-66, ECHR 2002-I; see also Tiemann v. France and Germany (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 19664/20

  VERHOEVEN c. FRANCE

  Elles ont aussi pris soin de relever qu'aucune violence ou châtiment corporel n'avait été allégué à l'encontre de l'enfant (comparer avec O.C.I. et autres c. Roumanie [Comité], no 49450/17, 21 mai 2019 ; mutatis mutandis M.R. et L.R. c. Estonie (déc.), no 13420/12, §§ 45 et 46, 15 mai 2012 ; et G.K. c. Chypre, no 16205/21, § 47, 21 février 2023).
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 4320/11

  B. c. BELGIQUE

  La Cour constate qu'il s'agit là d'une lacune d'ordre procédural qui distingue la présente espèce de la récente affaire M.R. et L.R. c. Estonie (déc., no 13420/12, 15 mai 2012), dans laquelle les juridictions estoniennes avaient à leur disposition, outre plusieurs rapports d'expertise psychologique soumis par les parties, l'avis d'un expert psychothérapeute désigné par voie judiciaire.
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 61984/17

  MAKHMUDOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Estonian Government concluded that the failure on the part the domestic authorities to undertake adequate and efficient steps to enforce the return order had helped the "abductor" parent to benefit from his illegal actions, which had amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, ECHR 2000-I; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, ECHR 2003-V; V.P. v. Russia, no. 61362/12, 23 October 2014; and M.R. and L.R. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 13420/12, 15 May 2012).

 
• EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 60393/13

  McILWRATH v. RUSSIA

  Such a presumption in favour of return is supposed to discourage this type of behaviour and promote "the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law" (see, mutatis mutandis, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 129, ECHR 2000-VIII; see also M.R. and L.R. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 13420/12, § 43, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 22909/10

  HROMADKA AND HROMADKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Such presumption in favour of return is supposed to discourage this type of behaviour and to promote "the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law" (see, mutatis mutandis, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 129, ECHR 2000-VIII; see also M.R. and L.R. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 13420/12, § 43, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 61362/12

  V.P. v. RUSSIA

  Such presumption in favour of return is supposed to discourage this type of behaviour and to promote "the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law" (see, mutatis mutandis, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 129, ECHR 2000-VIII; see also M.R. and L.R. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 13420/12, § 43, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 15.10.2013 - 78296/11

  NADOLSKA AND LOPEZ NADOLSKA v. POLAND

  In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, it has been held on many occasions that where the measures in issue concern parental disputes over their children, it is not for the Court to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities in regulating custody or contact questions but rather to review the procedure followed by the domestic courts, in particular to ascertain whether those courts, in applying and interpreting the provisions of the Hague Convention, have secured the guarantees of the Convention and especially those of Article 8 (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 133, ECHR 2010 and M.R. and L.R. v. Estonia no. 13420/12 (dec.) 15 May 2012 § 37).