Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POVSE v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  POVSE v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Inadmissible

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  POVSE v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 06.12.2012 - 12323/11

  MICHAUD v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 3890/11

  It had to be distinguished from other cases in which the Court had examined a Contracting State's responsibility under the Convention despite the fact that the State had fulfilled its obligations under EU law (see, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 339, ECHR 2011, and Michaud v. France, no. 12323/11, § 114, 6 December 2012).
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 3890/11

  Turning to the question of the responsibility of Austria under the Convention, the Government, referring to the Court's judgment in Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], (no. 45036/98, § 155 et seq., ECHR 2005-VI), reiterated that there was a presumption that a State which had merely complied with the legal obligations incumbent on it as a result of its membership in an international organisation had not violated its obligations under the Convention if the protection of fundamental rights provided by the international organisation concerned was equivalent to that provided by the Convention.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 08.02.2024 - C-633/22

  Real Madrid Club de Fútbol - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  42 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 18. Juni 2013, Povse/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2013:0618DEC000389011, §§ 86 und 87).

  140 Vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 18. Juni 2013, Povse/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2013:0618DEC000389011, §§ 79 bis 81).

  141 Der EGMR hat in seinem Urteil vom 18. Juni 2013, Povse/Österreich (CE:ECHR:2013:0618DEC000389011, §§ 79 bis 83), nämlich die Auffassung vertreten, dass diese Vermutung im Kontext der Vollstreckung einer Entscheidung über die Rückgabe eines Kindes auf der Grundlage der Verordnung Nr. 2201/2003 anwendbar sei.

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 5809/08

  AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND

  For example, the principle of equivalent protection has been applied differently in EU-related cases concerning labour disputes within the European Commission (see Connolly v. 15 member States of the European Union (dec.), no. 73274/01, 9 December 2008, and Andreasen v. the United Kingdom and 26 other member States of the European Union (dec.), no. 28827/11, 31 March 2015), the regular enforcement of EU acts (see Bosphorus, cited above; Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvisserij U.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13645/05, ECHR 2009; and Povse v. Austria (dec.), no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013) or the application of primary EU law (see Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 4097/13

  M.A. v. AUSTRIA

  In the related case brought before the European Court of Human Rights by the mother of the child (Povse v. Austria (dec.), no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013), the Court granted a request for interim measures on 4 December 2012.
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 51312/16

  M.K. c. GRÈCE

  I recall that in Povse v. Austria (dec., no. 3890/11, 18 June 2013), the Court held that in the context of the application of this "overriding" mechanism, the presumption that, in simply fulfilling its obligations as an EU Member State under the Brussels IIa Regulation, the respondent State had complied with the Convention had not been rebutted.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.12.2014 - C-498/14

  Bradbrooke

  22 Vgl. EGMR, Povse/Österreich, Beschwerde Nr. 3890/11, §§ 85 und 86 (im Internet unter http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-122449 zugänglich).