Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DARMON v. POLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

  NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05

  The Government also submitted that there was no civil procedure available to the applicant under Polish law by which he could effectively request the prosecutor to institute civil proceedings on his behalf (Nylund, ((dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 19.10.1999 - 34308/96

  YILDIRIM v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05

  In those cases the question was left open whether paternity proceedings aimed at the dissolution in law of existing family ties concerned the applicant's "family life" because of the finding that, in any event, the determination of the father's legal relations with his putative child concerned his "private life" (see Yıldırım v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999, and Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 33 and Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 30, 24 November 2005).
• EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 74826/01

  SHOFMAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05

  In those cases the question was left open whether paternity proceedings aimed at the dissolution in law of existing family ties concerned the applicant's "family life" because of the finding that, in any event, the determination of the father's legal relations with his putative child concerned his "private life" (see Yıldırım v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999, and Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 33 and Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 30, 24 November 2005).

 
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 26111/02

  MIZZI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05

  A similar finding was reached by the Court in the Mizzi v. Malta judgment as the applicant was never allowed to contest his paternity, in breach of Articles 6 and 8 (no. 26111/02, § 114, ECHR 2006-... ).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05

  This right extends only to disputes ("contestations") over "civil rights and obligations" which can be said, at least on arguable grounds, to be recognised under domestic law (see, among other authorities, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1986, Series A no. 98, pp. 46-47, § 81, and Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 16, § 36).
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05

  In those cases the question was left open whether paternity proceedings aimed at the dissolution in law of existing family ties concerned the applicant's "family life" because of the finding that, in any event, the determination of the father's legal relations with his putative child concerned his "private life" (see Yıldırım v. Austria (dec.), no. 34308/96, 19 October 1999, and Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 13, § 33 and Shofman v. Russia, no. 74826/01, § 30, 24 November 2005).

• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 28475/14

  BAGNIEWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Or, selon lui, le requérant était tenu de proposer au tribunal des preuves raisonnables et suffisantes pour prouver ses allégations (Darmon c. Pologne (déc.), no 7802/05, 17 novembre 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 37583/04

  M.D. c. BULGARIE

  Contrairement à ces deux affaires, le requérant dans la présente affaire ne disposait pas de preuves génétiques soutenant ses allégations qu'il n'était pas le père de T. (voir également Darmon c. Pologne (déc.), no 7802/05, 17 novembre 2009).
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  BAKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Furthermore, the Court considers that, contrary to the case of Mizzi v. Malta, in the present case the applicant did not submit any convincing scientific evidence to the prosecutor to substantiate 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, 17.10.2017 - 54056/15

  KORDEK v. POLAND

  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).