Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOLJEVIC v. SERBIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOLJEVIC v. SERBIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 16.07.1971 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  The Court has, however, also frequently emphasised the need to apply the exhaustion rule with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Ringeisen v. Austria, 16 July 1971, § 89, Series A no. 13; Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 69; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 76).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity-related proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006-X; and Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 37, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole, and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290, and Backlund, cited above, § 39).

 
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98

  Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  In the instant case the Court is not called upon to determine whether the proceedings to establish parental ties between the applicant and his biological father concern "family life" within the meaning of Article 8, since in any event the right to know one's ascendants falls within the scope of the concept of "private life", which encompasses important aspects of one's personal identity, such as the identity of one's parents (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III, and Backlund, cited above, § 37).
• EGMR, 01.03.2010 - 46113/99

  Demopoulos ./. Türkei und 7 andere

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  46113/99 and 7 others, § 69, ECHR 2010; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, 10 September 2010; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 77).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 58757/00

  JÄGGI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity-related proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006-X; and Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 37, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 8307/11

  GÖTHLIN v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  Where, for example, more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to use one remedy of his or her own choosing (see, among many other authorities, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 58, ECHR 2009; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 142, ECHR 2012; Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, § 45, 16 October 2014; and O"Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  The existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust that avenue of redress (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 71; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 70, 17 September 2009; and Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 74).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 17038/04

  GRONMARK CONTRE LA FINLANDE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity-related proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006-X; and Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 37, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 23.04.1992 - 11798/85

  CASTELLS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 47443/14

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be made subsequently in Strasbourg should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance (see, for instance, Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 236; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §§ 144 and 146, ECHR 2010; and Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183/95, § 37, ECHR 1999-I) and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law and, further, that any procedural means that might prevent a breach of the Convention should have been used (see Vuckovic and Others, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 10.09.2010 - 31333/06

  McFARLANE v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 29183/95

  FRESSOZ ET ROIRE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 11288/18

  D c. FRANCE

  Que l'on soit d'accord ou pas, l'importance du lien biologique se trouve au c?“ur d'autres affaires, liées ou non au contexte de la GPA, qui portent sur l'article 8 de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Mandet c. France, no 30955/12, § 59, 14 janvier 2016, et Boljevic c. Serbie, no 47443/14, §§ 28 et 54, 16 juin 2020, où, du point de vue de l'enfant, l'établissement de l'identité du père biologique a été considéré comme étant « un intérêt vital protégé par la Convention'même après le passage de plusieurs décennies).
• EGMR, 14.03.2024 - 62020/14

  MOLDOVAN v. UKRAINE

  Furthermore, in the more recent cases of Backlund v. Finland (cited above) and Boljevic v. Serbia (no. 47443/14, § 28, 16 June 2020) the Court has reaffirmed that there was no reason of principle to exclude paternity matters from the scope of Article 8. Moreover, the Court has also found Article 8 to be applicable in cases regarding the annulment of an adoption allegedly concluded solely for inheritance purposes (Zaiet v. Romania, no. 44958/05, §§ 28, 42 and 47-51, 24 March 2015) and access to family allowances (Beeler v. Switzerland [GC], no. 78630/12, §§ 72 and 79-82, 20 October 2020 and Yocheva and Ganeva v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 18843/20

  CHERRIER c. FRANCE

  À cet épanouissement contribuent l'établissement des détails de son identité d'être humain et l'intérêt vital, protégé par la Convention, à obtenir des informations nécessaires à la découverte de la vérité concernant un aspect important de son identité personnelle, par exemple l'identité de son géniteur (Odièvre, précité, § 29, Godelli, précité, § 45, Çapin c. Turquie, no 44690/09, §§ 33 et 34, 15 octobre 2019, Boljevic c. Serbie, no 47443/14, § 28, 16 juin 2020).

 
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 21424/16

  GAUVIN-FOURNIS ET SILLIAU c. FRANCE

  À cet épanouissement contribuent l'établissement des détails de son identité d'être humain et l'intérêt vital, protégé par la Convention, à obtenir des informations nécessaires à la découverte de la vérité concernant un aspect important de son identité personnelle, par exemple l'identité de son géniteur (Odièvre, précité, § 29, Godelli, précité, § 45, Çapin c. Turquie, no 44690/09, §§ 33 et 34, 15 octobre 2019, Boljevic c. Serbie, no 47443/14, § 28, 16 juin 2020).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 69997/17

  LAVANCHY c. SUISSE

  Il en résulte que les tribunaux suisses ne se sont pas en l'espèce limités à constater que le délai prévu pour ouvrir une action en constatation de filiation était écoulé (voir, a contrario, Laakso, précité, § 53) mais qu'ils ont cherché à établir si l'intérêt qu'avait la requérante à faire légalement confirmer ses origines pouvait l'emporter sur les autres intérêts en jeu (voir, a contrario, Çapin, précité, § 79, et Boljevic c. Serbie, no 47443/14, §§ 55-56, 16 juin 2020).
• EGMR, 31.05.2022 - 32185/20

  H v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court had also emphasised the importance of establishment of biological parentage, as a component of identity (see Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 37, ECHR 2006-X; Godelli v. Italy, no. 33783/09, §§ 50, 52 and 57 to 58, 25 September 2012; and Boljevic v. Serbia, no. 47443/14, § 55, 16 June 2020).