Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAMNJANOVIC v. SERBIA

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 5222/07

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78028/01

  PINI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 5222/07

  Further, the Court notes that, irrespective of whether enforcement is to be carried out against a private or State actor, it is up to the State to take all necessary steps to execute a final court judgment as well as to, in so doing, ensure effective participation of its entire apparatus, failing which it will fall short of the requirements contained in Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the child custody context, Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 5222/07

  In both contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly found that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution, in so far as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, among other authorities, Hokkanen, cited above, § 58; Nuutinen, cited above, §§ 127-28; Glaser, cited above, § 66; Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 59, 24 April 2003; Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, §§ 97-99, 23 September 2003; Kallo v. Hungary (dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003; Zawadka v. Poland, no. 48542/99, § 56, 23 June 2005; and Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 76, 28 May 2013; see also the cases against Serbia, V.A.M. v. Serbia, cited above, §§ 140-44; Tomic, cited above, §§ 100-02; Felbab v. Serbia, no. 14011/07, § 67, 14 April 2009; Krivo?.ej v. Serbia, no. 42559/08, § 52, 13 April 2010; and Damnjanovic v. Serbia, no. 5222/07, § 80-82, 18 November 2008).
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11

  ZDRAVKOVIC v. SERBIA

  Accordingly, the execution of a judicial decision cannot be prevented, invalidated or unduly delayed (see, among other authorities, Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, pp. 510-11, § 40; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34, ECHR 2002-III; Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 27, 6 March 2003; and Damnjanovic v. Serbia, no. 5222/07, § 67, 18 November 2008).