Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAZARENKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAZARENKO v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NAZARENKO v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 39438/13

  According to the Court's case-law, respect for family life required that biological and social reality should prevail over a legal presumption of paternity (see Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 40, Series A no. 297-C; and Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 44, 24 November 2005).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 20578/07

  Anayo ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 39438/13

  The Court reiterates that the notion of "family life" under Article 8 of the Convention is not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties (see Anayo v. Germany, no. 20578/07, § 55, 21 December 2010, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07

  PLAZA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 39438/13

  Article 8 requires that the domestic authorities should strike a fair balance between the interests of the child and those of the parents and that, in the balancing process, primary importance should be attached to the best interests of the child, which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parents (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII, and Plaza v. Poland, no. 18830/07, § 71, 25 January 2011).

• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 23280/08

  MOOG v. GERMANY

  Diese Pflichten können Maßnahmen beinhalten, die zur Sicherstellung der Achtung des Privatlebens auch im Verhältnis von einzelnen Personen untereinander ergriffen werden; dies umfasst sowohl die Schaffung eines rechtlichen Rahmens, der ein Gerichtswesen und Vollstreckungsmittel zum Schutz der Rechte des Einzelnen bietet, als auch gegebenenfalls die Umsetzung konkreter Schritte (siehe mit weiteren Nachweisen Nazarenko./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39438/13, Rdnr. 61, ECHR 2015 (Auszüge)).
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10

  Ein Recht auf Scheidung? Pole scheitert mit Scheidungswunsch

  Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, 16 July 2015.20.
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 59252/19

  VINSKOVSKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Referring to the conditions set out in Article 927 of the Civil Code and to the application thereof (see paragraphs 19-22 above), they further contended that domestic court decisions in this area were always based on an assessment of the specific circumstances of each case and, in particular, on the best interests of the child whose participatory rights were being observed (which, in their view, distinguished the Czech law from the Russian law that was at issue in V.D. and Others v. Russia, no. 72931/10, § 129, 9 April 2019, and Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 66, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).

  Accordingly, Article 8 of the Convention can be interpreted as imposing on member States an obligation to examine on a case-by-case basis whether it is in the child's best interests to maintain contact with a person, whether biologically related or not, who has taken care of him or her for a sufficiently long period of time (see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 66, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Jírová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 66015/17, § 121, 13 April 2023).

 
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 30955/12

  MANDET c. FRANCE

  Il faut toutefois noter que, les juridictions internes ayant confié l'exercice de l'autorité parental à la première requérante, leurs décisions ne faisaient pas obstacle à ce qu'il continue à vivre au quotidien au sein de la famille constituée autour des premiers requérants, conformément à son souhait (comparer avec Nazarenko c. Russie, no 39438/13, 16 juillet 2015).
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 72931/10

  V.D. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, Article 8 of the Convention can be interpreted as imposing on member States an obligation to examine on a case-by-case basis whether it is in the child's best interests to maintain contact with a person, whether biologically related or not, who has taken care of him or her for a sufficiently long period of time (see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 66, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.05.2021 - 54978/17

  JESSICA MARCHI c. ITALIE

  Le droit au respect d'une « vie familiale'ne protège pas le simple désir de fonder une famille ; il présuppose l'existence d'une famille (Marckx, précité, § 31), voire au minimum d'une relation potentielle qui aurait pu se développer, par exemple, entre un père naturel et un enfant né hors mariage (Nylund c. Finlande (déc.), no 27110/95, CEDH 1999-VI), d'une relation née d'un mariage non fictif, même si une vie familiale ne se trouvait pas encore pleinement établie (Abdulaziz, Cabales et Balkandali c. Royaume-Uni, 28 mai 1985, § 62, série A no 94), d'une relation entre un père et son enfant légitime, même s'il s'est avéré des années après que celle-ci n'était pas fondée sur un lien biologique (Nazarenko c. Russie, no 39438/13, § 58, CEDH 2015 (extraits)), ou encore d'une relation née d'une adoption légale et non fictive (Pini et autres c. Roumanie, nos 78028/01 et 78030/01, § 148, CEDH 2004-V (extraits)).
• EGMR, 05.05.2020 - 71160/13

  UZBYAKOV v. RUSSIA

  In respect of Russia, the Court has previously held that an interference with applicants" family life which was the result of the automatic application of inflexible legal provisions in that field amounted to a failure to respect their family life (see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, §§ 64-68, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and V.D. and Others v. Russia, no. 72931/10, §§ 127-131, 9 April 2019).
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 36335/18

  FATKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law, see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, §§ 33-40, ECHR 2015 (extracts).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 70879/11

  ILYA LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has shown its disapproval towards the inflexibility of Russian family law in two cases, namely Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, §§ 64-68, ECHR 2015 (extracts), and V.D. and Others v. Russia, cited above §§ 127-131, by finding a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, because Russian family law did not permit a person who was the guardian of a child but not his or her biological parent to maintain access to the child after the biological parents regained their parental authority.
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 19845/15

  GATCINAS v. LITHUANIA

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law where it held that although, as a rule, cohabitation might be a requirement for such a relationship, other factors might exceptionally also serve to demonstrate that a relationship had sufficient constancy to create de facto family ties (see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 56, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), including the length of the relationship and whether the couple had demonstrated their commitment to each other (see Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, no. 60119/12, § 42, 8 December 2015).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 38647/09

  ÓNODI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 62564/13

  CIAPAS v. LITHUANIA