Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,20326
EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,20326)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19.07.2016 - 60281/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,20326)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 19. Juli 2016 - 60281/11 (https://dejure.org/2016,20326)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,20326) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    E.S. v. ROMANIA AND BULGARIA

    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Romania);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 63777/09

    R.S. v. POLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11
    The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child 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 ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102 and 107, ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see notably 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; Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, §§ 54-62, 21 July 2015).

    On the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the primary interference with the applicant's right to respect for her family life may not be attributed to either of the respondent States but rather to the actions of the child's grandparents, third parties, who had retained the child in Bulgaria (see R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, §§ 56-57, 21 July 2015; López Guió v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, § 85, 3 June 2014).

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11
    In other words, the Bulgarian State has been afforded the opportunity of preventing the violation alleged against it (see Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, § 66, 12 July 2011; see also Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 10161/13

    M. AND M. v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11
    The Court has formulated the following general principles when examining the State's positive obligations in the sphere of personal relations between parents and their children (see M. and M. v. Croatia, no. 10161/13, §§ 176-181, ECHR 2015 (extracts), case-law references omitted):.
  • EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 50177/99

    KÖSE ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11
    However, exhaustion has been deemed to have been complied with where the final stage of the exhaustion of the domestic remedies takes place after the application has been submitted but before the Court decides on its admissibility (see, for example, Yakup Köse v. Turkey (dec.), no. 50177/99, 2 May 2006; see also Sneersone and Kampanella, cited above, § 66).
  • EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

    ADZIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11
    The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child 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 ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102 and 107, ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see notably 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; Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, §§ 54-62, 21 July 2015).
  • EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

    Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11
    The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child 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 ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102 and 107, ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see notably 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; Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, §§ 54-62, 21 July 2015).
  • EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

    SHAW v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11
    The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child 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 ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102 and 107, ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see notably 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; Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, §§ 54-62, 21 July 2015).
  • EGMR, 07.04.2022 - 13344/20

    A.L. c. FRANCE

    Renvoyant aux paragraphes 65 et 66 ci-dessus, la Cour souligne que ce constat de violation ne saurait être interprété comme mettant en cause l'appréciation de la cour d'appel de Rouen de l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant S. et sa décision de rejeter les demandes du requérant, confirmées par la Cour de cassation (comparer mutatis mutandis avec, par exemple, M.V. c. Pologne, no 16202/14, § 82, 1er avril 2021, Ad?¾ic c. Croatie (no 2), no 19601/16, §§ 95-96, 2 mai 2019 et E.S. c. Roumanie et Bulgarie, no 60281/11, § 82, 19 juillet 2016).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht