Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  G.N. v. POLAND

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  ADZIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 2171/14

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  SHAW v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 2171/14

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 2171/14

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).

• OLG Hamm, 22.12.2016 - 11 UF 194/16

  Ausschluss der Rückführung widerrechtlich nach Deutschland verbrachter Kinder …

  Dies gilt entgegen der Ansicht des Kindesvaters auch unter Berücksichtigung der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (vgl. die Erkenntnisse in Sachen G.N. v. Poland , Entscheidung vom 19.7.2016 - 2171/14 -, sowie in Sachen Paradis and Others v. Germany , Entscheidung vom 15.5.2003 - 4783/03 -).

  Bringt der Herkunftsstaat etwa ein internationales Festnahmeersuchen zwecks Auslieferung über Interpol aus und fehlen dennoch Hinweise darauf, dass der entführende Elternteil verhaftet werden soll, so kann es an ausreichenden Feststellungen für ein greifbar bevorstehendes Hindernis fehlen (vgl. die Entscheidung vom 19.7.2016 - 2171/14 -, Rz. 65).

• OLG Hamm, 13.07.2021 - 11 UF 71/21

  Antrag auf Rückführung eines Kindes in die Niederlande Nachträglich entstandenes …

  Zu einem anderen Ergebnis führt die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte auch hier nicht, weil die erörterten greifbar bevorstehende Hindernisse gem. Art. 13 Abs. 1 Buchst. b) HKÜ eine Rückkehr der Kindesmutter in die Niederlande derzeit unzumutbar machen (vgl. die Erkenntnisse in Sachen G.N. v. Poland , Entscheidung vom 19.7.2016 - 2171/14 -, sowie in Sachen Paradis and Others v. Germany , Entscheidung vom 15.5.2003 - 4783/03 -).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 80606/17

  MOGA v. POLAND

  That action nevertheless placed the respondent State under a positive obligation to secure for the applicant his right to respect for his family life, which included examining his application under the Hague Convention with a view to ensuring his prompt reunification with his children (see G.N. v. Poland, no. 2171/14, §§ 47 and 48, 19 July 2016).

 
• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 32662/20

  VASSALLO v. HUNGARY

  That action nevertheless placed the respondent State under a positive obligation to secure for the applicant his right to respect for his family life, which included examining his application under the Hague Convention with a view to ensuring his prompt reunion with his children (see G.N. v. Poland, no. 2171/14, §§ 47-48, 19 July 2016).
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 30560/19

  P.D. v. RUSSIA

  That action nevertheless placed the respondent State under a positive obligation to secure for the applicant his right to respect for his family life, which included taking measures under the Hague Convention with a view to ensuring his prompt reunification with his child (see Thompson v. Russia, no. 36048/17, §§ 55-56, 30 March 2021, and G.N. v. Poland, no. 2171/14, §§ 47-48, 19 July 2016).
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 16202/14

  M.V. v. POLAND

  That action nevertheless placed the respondent State under a positive obligation to secure for the applicant his right to respect for his family life, which included examining his request under the Hague Convention with a view to ensuring his prompt reunification with his child (see G.N. v. Poland, no. 2171/14, §§ 47 and 48, 19 July 2016).