Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PAULIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.11.1986 - 9063/80

  GILLOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.10.1989 - 10842/84

  ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  The Court, noting that its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 25 October 1989, Series A no. 163, p. 17, § 57), is thus satisfied that the national courts' decisions ordering the applicant's eviction were in accordance with domestic law and in particular the relevant legislation related to the disposal of the housing stock (see §§ 17-19).
• EKMR, 08.02.1978 - 7456/76

  WIGGINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 3572/06

  Whether or not a particular premises constitutes a "home" which attracts the protection of Article 8 § 1 will depend on the factual circumstances, namely, the existence of sufficient and continuous links with a specific place (see Buckley v. the United Kingdom, 25 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, §§ 52-54, and Commission's report of 11 January 1995, § 63; Gillow v. the United Kingdom, 24 November 1986, § 46, Series A no. 109; Wiggins v. the United Kingdom, no. 7456/76, Commission decision of 8 February 1978, DR 13, p. 40; and Prokopovich v. Russia, no. 58255/00, § 36, ECHR 2004-XI (extracts)).

• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 30856/03

  KRYVITSKA AND KRYVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  While the Court is not in a position to substitute its own judgment for that of the national courts and its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X, and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, § 39, 22 October 2009), it is the Court's function to review the reasoning adduced by domestic judicial authorities from the point of view of the Convention (see Slivenko, loc. cit.).

  In particular, even where the lawful right to occupation of the premises has come to an end, an individual should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in the light of the relevant principles of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, §§ 60-63, 9 October 2007; McCann, cited above, § 50; Ä?osic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 21-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 42-45, 22 October 2009).

• EGMR, 21.04.2016 - 46577/15

  IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA

  On this point, the case bears considerable resemblance with cases concerning the eviction of tenants from public housing (see McCann, cited above; Cosic, cited above; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 37341/06, 21 September 2010; Kryvitska and Kryvitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 30856/03, 2 December 2010; Igor Vasilchenko v. Russia, no. 6571/04, 3 February 2011; and Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012), and cases concerning the eviction of occupiers from publicly owned land (see Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I; Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004; Yordanova and Others, cited above; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; and Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 30499/03

  DUBETSKA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  As regards the Government's allegation that the Gavrylyuk-Vakiv family's claims were manifestly ill-founded as their resettlement claim had been rejected in domestic proceedings, the Court agrees that it is not in a position to substitute its own judgment for that of the national courts and its power to review compliance with domestic law is limited (see, among other authorities, Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, § 39, 22 October 2009).

 
• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 76202/16

  F.J.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The principle that any person at risk of losing his or her home should in principle be able to have the proportionality of the measure determined by an independent tribunal in light of the relevant principles under Article 8 of the Convention (see paragraph 36 above) has primarily been applied in cases where applicants had been living in State-owned or socially-owned accommodation (see, for example, Connors, cited above; Stanková v. Slovakia, no. 7205/02, 9 October 2007; McCann cited above; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009, Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; Kay, cited above; Orlic v. Croatia, no. 48833/07, 21 June 2011; Buckland v. the United Kingdom, no. 40060/08, 18 September 2012; Pinnock and Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 31673/11, 24 September 2013; Yevgeniy Zakharov v. Russia, no. 66610/10, 14 March 2017; Shvidkiye v. Russia, no. 69820/10, 25 July 2017; and Panyushkiny v. Russia, no. 47056/11, 21 November 2017).
• EGMR - 3249/22 (anhängig)

  JELAVIC v. CROATIA

  Was the second-instance judgment ordering the applicant to vacate the flat in which he was living in breach of his right to respect for his home, guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the domestic courts required to carry out a proportionality analysis (compare, for example, Bjedov v. Croatia, no. 42150/09, 29 May 2012; Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, 22 October 2009; and Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, 15 January 2009, and contrast with F.J.M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76202/16, 6 November 2018; and Vrzic v. Croatia, no. 43777/13, §§ 59-73, 12 July 2016, and see also Vukusic v. Croatia, no. 69735/11, § 48, 31 May 2016)?.
• EGMR - 74150/11 (anhängig)

  MILASHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009)?.
• EGMR - 20832/16 (anhängig)

  KORNYUSHKINY v. RUSSIA

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary within the terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009)?.
• EGMR - 48730/11 (anhängig)

  KISELEVY v. RUSSIA

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009)?.
• EGMR - 57824/11 (anhängig)

  KARPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  If so, was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see, for instance, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 19009/04, § 50, ECHR 2008; Cosic v. Croatia, no. 28261/06, §§ 20-23, 15 January 2009; and Paulic v. Croatia, no. 3572/06, §§ 40-45, 22 October 2009)?.