Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMCHUR c. UKRAINE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation de l'article 8 - Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale (Article 8-1 - Respect de la vie familiale) (französisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MAMCHUR v. UKRAINE

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been invoked both on its own and together with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, it is not generally necessary for the Court to consider the case under Article 14 also, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  A.K. AND L. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  In the circumstances of the present case and having regard to its findings under Article 8 (see paragraphs 84, 87, 112 and 113 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the applicant's complaints under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see A.K. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 93-94, 8 January 2013).

 
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 8153/04

  MARSÁLEK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  On the other hand, it is clearly also in the child's interest to ensure its development in a sound environment, and a parent cannot be entitled under Article 8 to have such measures taken as would harm the child's health and development (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, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  On the other hand, it is clearly also in the child's interest to ensure its development in a sound environment, and a parent cannot be entitled under Article 8 to have such measures taken as would harm the child's health and development (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, 10.01.2008 - 35991/04

  KEARNS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  However, it must be borne in mind that paramount importance should be attached to the best interests of the child (see Johansen, cited above, § 78; Kearns v. France, no. 35991/04, § 79, 10 January 2008; and R. and H., cited above, §§ 73 and 81).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  In relation to the fundamental guarantee of mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes both a parent's right to take measures for the purpose of being reunited with his or her child and an obligation on the part of the national authorities to take such action (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  R. AND H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  It is not the Court's task to substitute itself for the domestic authorities but to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken and assessments made by those authorities in the exercise of their margin of appreciation (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001-VII, and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, § 81, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  Thus, there is no doubt that the tutelage decision constituted an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, and it must be determined whether such interference was justified under Article 8 § 2 - namely whether it was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society (see, among many other authorities, McMichael v. the nited Kingdom, 24 February 1995, §§ 86-87, Series A no. 307-B).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 4547/10

  Y.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  Whereas, in dealing with disputes between parents regarding the custody of children, domestic authorities normally enjoy a wide margin of appreciation, a stricter scrutiny by the Court may be required where limitations on parental rights might entail the curtailment of family relations between parent and child (see, for instance, Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 137, 13 March 2012, and M.D. and Others v. Malta, no. 64791/10, § 71, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 34630/07

  FUSCA v. ROMANIA

• EGMR, 08.12.2016 - 44316/07

  CHERNETSKIY v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the above findings under Article 12 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 14 (see Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 68, ECHR 2015, and Mamchur v. Ukraine, no. 10383/09, § 118, 16 July 2015).