Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  X v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 11223/04
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 11223/04
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 11223/04

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

• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 11223/04

  In the Court's view these circumstances undoubtedly show that from the moment of the child's birth until the alleged interference there existed between the applicant and her daughter a bond amounting to family life (see, mutatis mutandis, Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 18, § 45).

  The Court accepts therefore that the decisions at issue were aimed at protecting the best interest of the child, which is a legitimate aim within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 20, § 44; Görgülü v. Germany, no. 74969/01, § 37, 26 February 2004; and Glesmann v. Germany, no. 25706/03, § 101, 10 January 2008).

• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 11223/04

  The Court considers that the procedures applicable to the determination of issues relating to family life have to be such as to show respect for family life; in particular, parents normally have a right to be heard and to be fully informed in this connection, although restrictions on these rights could, in certain circumstances, find justification under Article 8 § 2. Accordingly, the Court is entitled to have regard to such a process to determine whether it has been conducted in a manner that, in all the circumstances, is fair and affords due respect to the interests protected by Article 8 (see B. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, pp. 73 and 74, § 65 and Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 113, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 11223/04

  Furthermore, the natural family relationship is not terminated by reason of the fact that the child is taken into public care (see Johansen v. Norway, judgment of 7 August 1996, Reports of Decisions and Judgments 1996-III, pp. 1001-02, § 52, and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 29, § 59).

• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  When it later transpired that the representative so appointed had omitted to claim just satisfaction, the Court made a non-pecuniary award, having regard to the trauma, anxiety and feelings of injustice that the applicant must have experienced as a result of the procedure leading to the adoption of her daughter (see X v. Croatia, no. 11223/04, §§ 61-63, 17 July 2008).

  [68] See X. v. Croatia no. 11223/04, §§ 61-63, 17 July 2008.