Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 20081/19, 20108/19, 20115/19, 20122/19, 20129/19, 20134/19, 20140/19, 55037/19, 55041/19, 55045/19, 55047/19, 55049/19, 55051/19, 5926/20, 5948/20, 5965/20, 5985/20, 6013/20, 6034/20, 6046/20, 6058/20 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BUHUCEANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BUHUCEANU AND CIOBOTARU v. ROMANIA and 12 other applications
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EuGH, 05.06.2018 - C-673/16
Der Begriff "Ehegatte" im Sinne der unionsrechtlichen Bestimmungen über die …
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 20081/19
The findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Coman and Others case (judgment of 5 June 2018, C-673/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385) are summarised in Fedotova and Others (cited above, § 60). - EGMR - 28473/12 (anhängig)
KREJZOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 20081/19
Referring to the Court's case-law in respect of cases such as Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic ([GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, 15 November 2016) and S.H. and Others v. Austria ([GC], no. 57813/00, ECHR 2011), they contended that consensus was a significant factor in any evaluation made by the Court but that it was not necessarily decisive or determinative. - EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 20081/19
The applicants have to show that they are personally affected by the contested legislation (see, for instance, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 101, ECHR 2014). - EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
E.B. v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2023 - 20081/19
In cases where a particularly vulnerable group in society had suffered discrimination, the State's margin of appreciation had been found to be substantively narrower (see E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, § 94, 22 January 2008).
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 11454/17
PRZYBYSZEWSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND
To that end, it must examine whether, having regard to the margin of appreciation afforded to it, the respondent State struck a fair balance between the prevailing interests it relied on and the interests claimed by the applicants (see Fedotova and Others, cited above, § 191, and Buhuceanu and Others v. Romania, nos. 20081/19 and 20 others, § 75, 23 May 2023).I refer in this respect to the views I expressed in my dissenting opinion appended to the judgment in Fedotova v. Russia ([GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, 17 January 2023), which were further developed in my joint dissenting opinion with Judge Harutyunyan in Buhuceanu v. Romania (nos. 20081/19 and 20 others, 23 May 2023).