Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PASCAL v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 805/09

  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).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 805/09

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; and Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 805/09

  By relying on the Court's case-law (see inter alia, Lafargue, cited above; Costreie, cited above; and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, ECHR 2000-I) the applicant concluded that he had been de facto deprived of his parental rights without any legal basis as a result of the domestic authorities" failure to quickly and effectively enforce the judgments granting him contact rights and to punish his former wife's obstructive behaviour towards the enforcement proceedings.

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 805/09

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; and Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 14565/05

  NISTOR c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 805/09

  In relation to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has held that in cases concerning the implementation of the contact rights of one of the parents, Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion, in so far as the interest of the child dictates that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family; the State's obligation is not one of result, but of means (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX; and Nistor v. Romania, no. 14565/05, §§ 70, 109, 2 November 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07

  PLAZA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 805/09

  The child's best interests must be the primary consideration (see, to that effect, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010, and Plaza v. Poland, no. 18830/07, § 71, 25 January 2011) and may, depending on their nature and seriousness, override those of the parents (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII).

• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 10131/11

  RAW ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Toutefois, la question de l'opportunité de telles poursuites se posait dans toute son ampleur, vu qu'on voulait maintenir la possibilité d'obtenir la coopération du père et éviter que les enfants ne souffrent de l'usage de la coercition contre lui (voir l'argumentation du Gouvernement reprise au paragraphe 71 ; voir également, mutatis mutandis, Pascal c. Roumanie (déc.), no 805/09, § 79, 17 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 12871/21

  SBARRO c. ITALIE

  Dans ce contexte, la Cour se doit de rappeler que l'obligation pour l'État de prendre des mesures positives est une obligation de moyens et non de résultat (Pascal c. Roumanie, no 805/09, § 69, 17 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 36137/13

  G.B. v. LITHUANIA

  Notwithstanding this, the decisions had basis in domestic law, namely Article 3.174 of the Civil Code, and pursued a legitimate aim - the best interests of the children, one of the most important factors according to the Court's case-law (the Government referred to Pascal v. Romania, no. 805/09, § 72, 17 April 2012; and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 96, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 48322/17

  LUZI c. ITALIE

  S'il est vrai que les obligations de l'État au titre de l'article 8 de la Convention ne sont pas des obligations de résultat mais de moyens (Pascal c. Roumanie, no 805/09, § 69, 17 avril 2012, et Wdowiak, précité), la Cour note que, dans le cas d'espèce, face à l'opposition de la mère de l'enfant qui perdurait depuis environ 8 ans, les autorités nationales n'ont pas pris toutes les mesures nécessaires et qui pouvaient raisonnablement être exigées d'elles pour faire respecter le droit du requérant d'avoir des contacts avec sa fille et d'établir une relation avec elle (Strumia, précité, § 123).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 57960/11

  VOROZHBA c. RUSSIE

  S'agissant de l'obligation pour l'État de prendre des mesures positives, elle rappelle que l'article 8 de la Convention implique le droit d'un parent à des mesures propres à le réunir à son enfant ainsi que l'obligation pour les autorités nationales de les prendre (voir, par exemple, Ignaccolo-Zenide c. Roumanie, no 31679/96, § 94, CEDH 2000-I, et Maumousseau et Washington c. France, no 39388/05, § 83, 6 décembre 2007) et que l'obligation de l'État est une obligation de moyens et non de résultat (Pascal c. Roumanie, no 805/09, § 69, 17 avril 2012).