Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TSVETELIN PETKOV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Tsvetelin Petkov v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06
• EGMR, 13.11.2019 - 2641/06

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity proceedings do fall within the scope of Article 8 (see, for example, Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 33; Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 18, § 45).

  In determining whether or not such an obligation exists, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the general interest and the interests of the individual; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, for instance, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 31, Series A no. 297-C; Rózanski v. Poland, no. 55339/00, § 61, 18 May 2006).

• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  In determining whether or not such an obligation exists, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the general interest and the interests of the individual; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see, for instance, Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 31, Series A no. 297-C; Rózanski v. Poland, no. 55339/00, § 61, 18 May 2006).

  The Court also recalls that it has earlier held that a situation in which a legal presumption is allowed to prevail over biological reality might not be compatible, even having regard to the margin of appreciation left to the State, with the obligation to secure effective "respect" for private life (see, Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 113, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 45, 24 November 2005; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-C).

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  Respect for "private life" must also comprise to a certain degree the right to establish relationships with other human beings (see, mutatis mutandis, Niemietz v. Germany, judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251-B, pp. 33-34, § 29).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  However, even assuming that he was away for longer than 30 days and failed to inform the authorities about it, the Court recalls that it is not its role to consider in the abstract whether national law conforms to the Convention (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 153, Series A no. 324; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, § 33, Series A no. 243; Etxeberria and Others v. Spain, nos. 35579/03, 35613/03, 35626/03 and 35634/03, § 81, 30 June 2009; Romanenko and Others v. Russia, no. 11751/03, § 39, 8 October 2009).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  For example, in the context of fair trial guarantees, it has found that the principle of equality of arms - in the sense of a "fair balance" between the parties - requires that each party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see, among other authorities, Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, § 33, Series A no. 274).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  The Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V; Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  Instead, it must review under the Convention whether the domestic authorities, in handling all related proceedings, including the applicant's claim for reopening, complied with the requirements and spirit of Article 8 of the Convention in the exercise of their positive obligations under that provision (see, for instance, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 35, 24 November 2005; Kalacheva v. Russia, no. 3451/05, § 34, 7 May 2009; Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 59, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity proceedings do fall within the scope of Article 8 (see, for example, Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 33; Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 18, § 45).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  The national authorities are better placed than international judges to find the optimal solution in the circumstances (see, among many other authorities, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, § 48, Series A no. 316-B).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 2312/08

  MAKTOUF ET DAMJANOVIC c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 2641/06

  The Court requires itemised bills and invoices that are sufficiently detailed to enable it to determine to what extent the above requirements have been met (see, among many other authorities, Maktouf and Damjanovic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 2312/08 and 34179/08, § 94, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 33958/96

  WETTSTEIN v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 26111/02

  MIZZI c. MALTE
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.09.1992 - 13191/87

  PHAM HOANG c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 28609/08

  A.L. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 38978/97

  SALOMONSSON v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 10.07.2003 - 58112/00

  MULTIPLEX v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99

  DORAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 3451/05

  KALACHEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 19673/03

  GRYAZNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 28245/04

  MOKHOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 23243/03

  SOKUR v. RUSSIA