Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MANSOUR v. SLOVAKIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MANSOUR v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 60399/15

  What is then decisive in this case is whether the Slovakian courts took all the necessary steps that could reasonably be demanded of them to facilitate the enforcement of the final domestic order for the return of the applicant's children to their place of habitual residence (see Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 22, § 58) and whether the applicant was obliged to seek constitutional protection repeatedly to prevent and provide redress for his situation, as suggested by the Government.
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 36812/97

  SYLVESTER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 60399/15

  That level of compensation does not appear to be commensurate with that awarded in similar cases under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 84, 24 April 2003; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 117, ECHR 2000-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 71, 15 December 2005).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 35030/04

  KARADZIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 60399/15

  That level of compensation does not appear to be commensurate with that awarded in similar cases under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for example, Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 84, 24 April 2003; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 117, ECHR 2000-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 71, 15 December 2005).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 60399/15

  These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life, even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, inter alia, Söderman v. Sweden [GC], no. 5786/08, § 78, ECHR 2013, and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 32, Series A no. 32).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 56065/10

  MILOVANOVIC v. SERBIA

  The Court notes that the proceedings which the applicant instituted in order to obtain redress for the situation about which she complained to the Court were pending before the Constitutional Court for three and a half years without any possibility of the case being dealt with as a priority policy, a lapse of time which cannot clearly be reconcilable with the general speediness requirement (see, in general context, Scordino, cited above, § 202; McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 123, 10 September 2010, with further references; Vidas v. Croatia, no. 40383/04, § 37, 3 July 2008; Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, § 56-57 and 65, ECHR 2003-X (extracts); and Wasserman v. Russia (no. 2), no. 21071/05, § 55, 10 April 2008; see, also, in respect of a preventive and compensatory nature of a remedy in context of Article 8, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 136-137, 15 January 2015; Macready v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 48; Bergmann v. the Czech Republic, no. 8857/08, 27 October 2011, §§ 45-46 with further references, and Mansour v. Slovakia, 60399/15, §§ 41-42, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 43229/18

  Y.Y. AND Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that, although the domestic court expressly acknowledged that there had been a breach of the first applicant's right to respect for her family life in the period between January 2016 and July 2017 and awarded her compensation for non-pecuniary damage, she retained her victim status as no proper enforcement had been secured and the applicants continued to be separated (see, mutatis mutandis, Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 137, 15 January 2015; and also Mijuskovic v. Montenegro, no. 49337/07, § 72, 21 September 2010 - reasoning applied in the context of Article 35 § 1 in a family case - and see also Milovanovic v. Serbia, no. 56065/10, § 98, 8 October 2019; and Mansour v. Slovakia, no. 60399/15, §§ 42-43, 21 November 2017).