Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 54056/15 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,62462) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KORDEK v. POLAND
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95
NYLUND contre la FINLANDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 54056/15
The Court considers that given the circumstances of the present case, and in view of M."s medical condition, it was justifiable for the domestic authorities to give greater weight to the interests of the child than to the interest of the applicant in obtaining the determination of a biological fact (see Iyilik v. Turkey, no. 2899/05, § 34, 6 December 2011, and Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI). - EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 2899/05
IYILIK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 54056/15
The Court considers that given the circumstances of the present case, and in view of M."s medical condition, it was justifiable for the domestic authorities to give greater weight to the interests of the child than to the interest of the applicant in obtaining the determination of a biological fact (see Iyilik v. Turkey, no. 2899/05, § 34, 6 December 2011, and Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI). - EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05
DARMON v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 54056/15
Furthermore, the Court considers that, contrary to the case of Mizzi v. Malta, in the present case the applicant did not submit to the prosecutor any convincing scientific evidence substantiating his doubts as to his paternity (see Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); Darmon v. Poland (dec.), no. 7802/05, 17 November 2009; and M.D. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 37583/04, 15 November 2011). - EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 37583/04
M.D. c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 54056/15
Furthermore, the Court considers that, contrary to the case of Mizzi v. Malta, in the present case the applicant did not submit to the prosecutor any convincing scientific evidence substantiating his doubts as to his paternity (see Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); Darmon v. Poland (dec.), no. 7802/05, 17 November 2009; and M.D. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 37583/04, 15 November 2011). - EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 35016/07
WULFF v. DENMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 54056/15
The Court has acknowledged the importance of the protection of legal certainty and finality in family relations (see Paulík v. Slovakia, no. 10699/05, § 44, ECHR 2006-XI (extracts), and Wulff v. Denmark (dec.), no. 35016/07, 9 March 2010).