Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ZDRAVKOVIC v. SERBIA
No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
STOJANOVIC v. SERBIA
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92
HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
What is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all such necessary steps to facilitate the execution as can reasonably be demanded in the specific circumstances of each case (see, mutatis mutandis, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A; Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 96; Nuutinen, cited above, § 128; and Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 59, 24 April 2003).Notwithstanding the margin of appreciation enjoyed by States, what is relevant is the suitability of the decisions carried out by national authorities when exercising their power of appreciation (see Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures, but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299, p. 20, § 55).".
- EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78030/01
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
The Court also 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, in so doing, ensuring effective participation of its entire apparatus, failing which it will fall short of the requirements laid down in Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the child custody context, Damnjanovic, cited above, § 68, and Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V)."The Court also 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 judgment as well as, in so doing, ensuring effective participation of its entire apparatus, failing which it will fall short of the requirements laid down in Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the child custody context, Damnjanovic, cited above, § 68, and Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V).".
- EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78028/01
PINI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
The Court also 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, in so doing, ensuring effective participation of its entire apparatus, failing which it will fall short of the requirements laid down in Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the child custody context, Damnjanovic, cited above, § 68, and Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V)."The Court also 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 judgment as well as, in so doing, ensuring effective participation of its entire apparatus, failing which it will fall short of the requirements laid down in Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, in the child custody context, Damnjanovic, cited above, § 68, and Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, §§ 174-189, ECHR 2004-V).".
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
GUZZARDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
As was held in Guzzardi v. Italy (6 November 1980, § 106, Series A no. 39), "... the Court may take cognisance of all questions of fact or of law arising in the course of the proceedings instituted before it; the only matter falling outside its jurisdiction is the examination of complaints held... to be inadmissible...". - EGMR, 03.09.2015 - 10161/13
M. AND M. v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
In M. and M. v. Croatia (no. 10161/13, § 179, 3 September 2015), the Court reiterated "[t]hat the ineffective, and in particular delayed, conduct of custody proceedings may give rise to a breach of positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention...". - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 22774/93
IMMOBILIARE SAFFI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
According to the case-law of the Court, the execution of a judgment given by a court must be regarded as a part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6 (see Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports 1997-II), and a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances" but it may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96
NUUTINEN v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
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; and Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V). - EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
KEEGAN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
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, 18.11.2008 - 5222/07
DAMNJANOVIC v. SERBIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
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). - EGMR, 25.01.2001 - 28460/95
M.C. v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 28181/11
In cases relating to civil status, what is at stake for the applicant is also a relevant consideration and special diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which excessively lengthy proceedings may have, notably on enjoyment of the right to respect for family life (see, among other authorities, Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I; Maciariello v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 18, Series A no. 230-A; and M.C. v. Finland (dec.), no. 28460/95, 25 January 2001). - EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 35030/04
KARADZIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 60393/13
McILWRATH v. RUSSIA
The Court notes that a parent and child's mutual enjoyment of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, most recently, Zdravkovic v. Serbia, no. 28181/11, § 60, 20 September 2016). - EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 51323/14
EDINA TÓTH v. HUNGARY
The Court reiterates that a parent and child's mutual enjoyment of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see Zdravkovic v. Serbia, no. 28181/11, § 60, 20 September 2016, and McIlwrath v. Russia, no. 60393/13, § 121, 18 July 2017).