Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PIOTROWSKI v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PIOTROWSKI v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 12 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 18.12.1987 - 11329/85

  F. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  It is subject to the laws of the Contracting States but the limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).

  It has also held that, if national legislation allows divorce, which is not a requirement of the Convention, Article 12 secures for divorced persons the right to remarry (see F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 38, Series A no. 128).

• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  Nevertheless, the Court has reiterated on many occasions that the Convention is a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 41, Series A no. 31, and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  Nevertheless, the Court has reiterated on many occasions that the Convention is a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 41, Series A no. 31, and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).

 
• EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81

  REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  It is subject to the laws of the Contracting States but the limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  They counteracted the menace of arbitrary and unilateral terminations of marriages, in a society adhering to the principle of the monogamy (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 52, Series A no. 112).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  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 Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 17414/05

  JAKELAITIS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  Where domestic law does not provide for service, it is appropriate to take the date when the decision was finalised as the starting point, that being when the parties were definitely able to find out its content (see Papachelas v. Greece [GC], no. 31423/96, § 30, ECHR 1999-II, and Jakelaitis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 17414/05, 16 December 2008).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 34216/07

  PIETKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 8923/12

  In the context of proceedings governed by the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has held, having regard to the fact that only the written grounds for the judgment contained a detailed summary of the facts of a case and the court's reasoning as to the law, that it was only on the date of service that the applicant had been able to find out the content of the judgment given in his case and that it was that date of service that had triggered the running of the six-month time-limit (see Pietka v. Poland, no. 34216/07, §§ 44-46, 16 October 2012).

• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16

  PERTAIA v. GEORGIA

  It was not until his lawyer was served with the full written judgment given by the Supreme Court that the applicant was able to find out the content, particularly the reasoning, of the final domestic decision given in his case (compare with Piotrowski v. Poland (dec.) [Committee], no. 8923/12, §§ 34-35, 22 November 2016; see also Pietka v. Poland, no. 34216/07, § 45, 16 October 2012, and Slawinski v. Poland [Committee], no. 61039/16, § 25, 15 April 2021, with further references therein; see also Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V).