Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HANSEN v. TURKEY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 27.05.1998 - 36141/97
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 36141/97
• EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

  Having regard to the sums awarded in comparable cases (see, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 117, Hokkanen, cited above, p. 27, § 77; see also, mutatis mutandis, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 71, ECHR 2000-VIII, Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-I and Sylvester v. Austria, cited above, § 84) and making an assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41, the Court awards the applicant EUR 15, 000.
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

  Having regard to the sums awarded in comparable cases (see, Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 117, Hokkanen, cited above, p. 27, § 77; see also, mutatis mutandis, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 71, ECHR 2000-VIII, Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 87, ECHR 2002-I and Sylvester v. Austria, cited above, § 84) and making an assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41, the Court awards the applicant EUR 15, 000.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

  35-36, § 90; Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55; Nuutinen v. Finland, judgment of 27 June 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-VIII, p. 83, § 127, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, judgment of 25 January 2000, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2000-I, p. 265, § 94 and Sylvester v. Austria, nos.

 
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

  In this context, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a right for parents to have measures taken that will permit them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action (see, Eriksson v. Sweden, judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 26-27, § 71; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 30, § 91; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

  In this context, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a right for parents to have measures taken that will permit them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action (see, Eriksson v. Sweden, judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 26-27, § 71; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 30, § 91; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

  MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

  In this context, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a right for parents to have measures taken that will permit them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action (see, Eriksson v. Sweden, judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 26-27, § 71; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, judgment of 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 30, § 91; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2003 - 36141/97

  There are in addition positive obligations inherent in an effective "respect" for family life (see the Keegan v. Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).

• EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 27853/09

  X v. LATVIA

  Voir, parmi d'autres précédents, les arrêts précités Ignaccolo-Zenide, § 95 ; Monory, § 81, et Iglesias Gil et A.U.I, § 61. Toutefois, l'obligation positive d'agir en cas d'enlèvement d'enfant s'applique aussi aux Etats non parties à la Convention de La Haye (voir Bajrami c. Albanie, n° 35853/04, 12 décembre 2006, et Hansen c. Turquie, n° 36141/97, 23 septembre 2003).
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 7548/04

  BIANCHI c. SUISSE

  Statuant en équité, comme le veut l'article 41 et à la lumière des affaires comparables, elle alloue au titre du préjudice moral la somme de 15 000 EUR (Iglesias Gil et A.U.I., précité, § 67 ; Maire, précité, § 82 ; Karadzic, précité, § 71 ; Monory, précité, § 96 ; Ignaccolo-Zenide, précité, § 117, CEDH 2000-I ; Sylvester, précité, § 84 ; Hansen c. Turquie, no 36141/97, § 122, 23 septembre 2003).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 7198/04

  IOSUB CARAS v. ROMANIA

  Having regard to the sums awarded in comparable cases (see Ignaccolo-Zenide, § 117; Sylvester, § 84; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I., § 67, and Monory, § 96, cited above, Sophia Gudrun Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, § 115, 23 September 2003, as well as Maire v. Portugal, no. 48206/99, § 82, ECHR 2003-VII), and making an assessment on an equitable basis as required by Article 41, the Court awards the first applicant EUR 20, 000 under this head.
• EGMR, 14.06.2022 - 5504/20

  K.Y. v. RUSSIA

  It should have become obvious to the bailiffs that the financial sanctions imposed on the child's mother were inadequate to improve the situation at hand and overcome her lack of cooperation, and yet no recourse to other realistic coercive measures against her, of a type which were likely to lead to compliance, was considered by the domestic authorities (see paragraphs 13-15 and 18 above; see also Zelenevy v. Russia, no. 59913/11, § 76, 3 October 2013; Prizzia v. Hungary, no. 20255/12, § 46, 11 June 2013; and Hansen v. Turkey, no. 36141/97, § 105, 23 September 2003; and compare to Pakhomova v. Russia, no. 22935/11, §§ 88-90, 24 October 2013).