Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17, 31083/17 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SOLSKA AND RYBICKA v. POLAND
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SOLSKA AND RYBICKA v. POLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SOLSKA v. POLAND and 1 other application
Wird zitiert von ... (8) Neu Zitiert selbst (20)
- EGMR, 01.04.2008 - 73957/01
VARGA c. ROUMANIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
In accordance with the Court's case-law, judicial review was one of the most important safeguards against arbitrary interferences with rights protected by Article 8. The applicants referred to the cases of Varga v. Romania (no. 73957/01, §§ 70-74, 1 April 2008), Kennedy v. the United Kingdom (no. 26839/05, § 124, 18 May 2010), and X v. Finland (no. 34806/04, § 220, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).In a number of cases involving complaints under Article 8, the Court has found that proper legal safeguards against arbitrariness would necessitate the provision of judicial or other independent scrutiny of relevant measures affecting individuals (see Rotaru v. Romania, § 59; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, § 40, both cited above; Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, § 73, 1 April 2008; Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 45, 15 February 2011; X v. Finland, cited above, §§ 220-21; and Polyakova and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 116-17).
- EGMR, 15.05.2006 - 1338/03
SUCCESSION KRESTEN FILTENBORG MORTENSEN c. DANEMARK
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
That conclusion was supported by the well-established case-law of the Court in cases such as, for example, Pannullo and Forte v. France (no. 37794/97, ECHR 2001-X), Estate of Kresten Filtenborg Mortensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 1338/03, ECHR 2006-V), Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland (no. 55525/00, 14 February 2008), Girard v. France (no. 22590/04, 30 June 2011) and Elberte v. Latvia (no. 61243/08, ECHR 2015).On the issue of interference, the Government noted that matters concerning the burial of family members fell within the scope of Article 8. Referring to the Estate of Kresten Filtenborg Mortensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 1338/03, ECHR 2006-V), the Government did not contest that the applicants" right to respect for the memory of a deceased family member fell within the scope of Article 8 § 1. They asserted that this right should be considered to fall within the notion of the right to private life.
- EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08
ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
On the one hand, Article 2 of the Convention contains a procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into alleged breaches of its substantive limb (see, among many other authorities, Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 229-39, ECHR 2016).Furthermore, it is important to stress that "effectiveness" of an investigation is not the only relevant aspect of the positive obligation under Article 2. As this Court has repeatedly made clear, in addition to being effective and independent, any investigation under Article 2 also has to (a) be prompt (see e.g. Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 237, 30 March 2016) and (b) proceed with reasonable expedition (see e.g. Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 305, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08
ELBERTE v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
That conclusion was supported by the well-established case-law of the Court in cases such as, for example, Pannullo and Forte v. France (no. 37794/97, ECHR 2001-X), Estate of Kresten Filtenborg Mortensen v. Denmark ((dec.), no. 1338/03, ECHR 2006-V), Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland (no. 55525/00, 14 February 2008), Girard v. France (no. 22590/04, 30 June 2011) and Elberte v. Latvia (no. 61243/08, ECHR 2015).In the cases of Petrova v. Latvia (no. 4605/05, § 77, 24 June 2014) and Elberte v. Latvia (no. 61243/08, § 89, ECHR 2015), the Court recognised that the removal of a deceased relative's organs or tissues without consent came within the scope of the "private life" of the surviving family members.
- EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 42639/04
JONES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
However, it is not excluded that respect for family and private life extends to certain situations after death (see Jones v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42639/04, 13 September 2005). - EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 56720/09
HEINO v. FINLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
In a number of cases involving complaints under Article 8, the Court has found that proper legal safeguards against arbitrariness would necessitate the provision of judicial or other independent scrutiny of relevant measures affecting individuals (see Rotaru v. Romania, § 59; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, § 40, both cited above; Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, § 73, 1 April 2008; Heino v. Finland, no. 56720/09, § 45, 15 February 2011; X v. Finland, cited above, §§ 220-21; and Polyakova and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 116-17). - EGMR, 25.09.2001 - 44787/98
P.G. AND J.H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
The requirements of Article 8 with regard to safeguards will depend, to some degree at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 121, 20 June 2002; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 46, ECHR 2001 IX; and C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1365/07, § 45, 24 April 2008). - EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 26839/05
KENNEDY c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
In accordance with the Court's case-law, judicial review was one of the most important safeguards against arbitrary interferences with rights protected by Article 8. The applicants referred to the cases of Varga v. Romania (no. 73957/01, §§ 70-74, 1 April 2008), Kennedy v. the United Kingdom (no. 26839/05, § 124, 18 May 2010), and X v. Finland (no. 34806/04, § 220, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). - EGMR, 02.08.1984 - 8691/79
MALONE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
For domestic law to meet these requirements, it must afford adequate legal protection against arbitrariness and accordingly indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner in which it is exercised (see Malone v. the United Kingdom, 2 August 1984, §§ 66-68, Series A no. 82; Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-II; Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 55, ECHR 2000-V; and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. - EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 4587/09
LOZOVYYE v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 30491/17
In the case of Lozovyye v. Russia, (no. 4587/09, § 34, 24 April 2018), the Court held that the applicants" right to respect for their private and family life had been affected by the failure of the State to inform them of their son's death before he had been buried. - EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04
X v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05
SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 26761/95
PLOSKI v. POLAND
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 1365/07
Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Ausweisung, …
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
- EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11
PARRILLO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 35090/09
POLYAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 37586/06
LIEPAJNIEKS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 36117/02
GRISANKOVA et GRISANKOVS contre la LETTONIE
- EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12886/16
POLAT v. AUSTRIA
Merits Has there been an interference with the applicant's rights? 53. The Court considers that the post-mortem of the corpse of the applicant's deceased son, carried out despite her and her husband's objections, could be regarded as impinging on her relational sphere in such a manner and to such a degree as to disclose an interference with her right to respect for her private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention (compare Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, nos. 30491/17 and 31083/17, § 110, 20 September 2018).30491/17 and 31083/17, § 131, 20 September 2018.
- EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21
WALESA v. POLAND
The requirements of Article 8 with regard to safeguards will depend, to some degree at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, nos. 30491/17 and 31083/17, § 113, 20 September 2018, with further references, and Juszczyszyn, cited above, §§ 261-263). - EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 16974/14
KACZMAREK v. POLAND
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the Court cannot conclude that the prosecutorial decision to disclose the recording of the applicant's conversation had some legal basis in domestic law (compare Craxi, cited above, § 82, and Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, nos. 30491/17 and 31083/17, § 113, 20 September 2018, with further references).
- EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 40119/21
M.L. v. POLAND
The requirements of Article 8 with regard to safeguards will depend, to some degree at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, nos. 30491/17 and 31083/17, § 113, 20 September 2018, with further references). - EGMR, 23.01.2024 - 3000/16
BELJIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
Regard being had to its case-law concerning surviving family members, the Court considers that the facts of the present case fall within the scope of the right to respect for private and family life (see, mutatis mutandis, Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, nos. 30491/17 and 31083/17, §§ 101-08, 20 September 2018, and the authorities cited therein; see also Dra?.kovic v. Montenegro, no. 40597/17, § 48, 9 June 2020, concerning specifically a request by a close relative to exhume the remains of a deceased family member for transfer to a new resting place). - EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 35599/20
JUSZCZYSZYN v. POLAND
The requirements of Article 8 with regard to safeguards will depend, to some degree at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, nos. 30491/17 and 31083/17, § 113, 20 September 2018, with further references). - EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 28336/12
AYGÜN c. BELGIQUE
L'absence d'une enquête effective peut engager la responsabilité de l'État partie sous l'angle de l'article 2 de la Convention (Solska et Rybicka c. Pologne, nos 30491/17 et 31083/17, §§ 118-120, 20 septembre 2018). - EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 621/14
L.F. v. HUNGARY
The requirements of Article 8 with regard to safeguards will depend, to some degree at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question (see Solska and Rybicka v. Poland, nos. 30491/17 and 31083/17, § 113, 20 September 2018).