Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,25252
EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,25252)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.01.2000 - 31679/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,25252)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Januar 2000 - 31679/96 (https://dejure.org/2000,25252)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,25252) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE c. ROUMANIE

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 8 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

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

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (67)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    35-36, § 90; and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55).
  • EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

    ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    As to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his or her being reunited with his or her child and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action (see, for example, the following judgments: Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 26-27, § 71; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 30, § 91; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
  • EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

    OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    As to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his or her being reunited with his or her child and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action (see, for example, the following judgments: Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 26-27, § 71; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 30, § 91; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
  • EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

    McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    The Court points out that in its judgment of 24 February 1995 in the McMichael v. the United Kingdom case (Series A no. 307-B, p. 55, § 87) it held that, although Article 8 contained no explicit procedural requirements,.
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

    KEEGAN v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see the Keegan v. Ireland judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).
  • EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

    MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    As to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a parent's right to the taking of measures with a view to his or her being reunited with his or her child and an obligation on the national authorities to take such action (see, for example, the following judgments: Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, Series A no. 156, pp. 26-27, § 71; Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, Series A no. 226-A, p. 30, § 91; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

    OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96
    The Court considers that the expenses relating to the steps taken in Romania and at Strasbourg to prevent or redress the situation it has held to be contrary to Article 8 of the Convention were incurred necessarily; they must accordingly be reimbursed in so far as they do not exceed a reasonable level (see, for example, the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 43, § 104).
  • EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 60654/00

    SYSSOYEVA ET AUTRES c. LETTONIE

    En outre, si l'article 8, consacré au droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale, tend pour l'essentiel à prémunir l'individu contre des ingérences arbitraires des pouvoirs publics, il ne se contente pas d'astreindre l'Etat à s'abstenir de pareilles ingérences: à cet engagement plutôt négatif peuvent s'ajouter des obligations positives inhérentes à un respect effectif de la vie privée et familiale (voir, par exemple, Gül c. Suisse, arrêt du 19 février 1996, Recueil 1996-I, pp. 174-175, § 38 ; Ignaccolo-Zenide c. Roumanie, no 31679/96, § 94, CEDH 2000-I ; et Mehemi c. France (no 2), no 53470/99, § 45, CEDH 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 41615/07

    NEULINGER ET SHURUK c. SUISSE

    En matière d'enlèvement international d'enfants, les obligations que l'article 8 fait peser sur les Etats contractants doivent dès lors s'interpréter notamment en tenant compte de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l'enlèvement international d'enfants (Iglesias Gil et A.U.I. c. Espagne, no 56673/00, § 51, CEDH 2003-V, et Ignaccolo-Zenide c. Roumanie, no 31679/96, § 95, CEDH 2000-I) et de la Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant du 20 novembre 1989 (Maire, précité, § 72).
  • EGMR, 26.11.2013 - 27853/09

    X v. LATVIA

    [3] L'arrêt de principe est Ignaccolo-Zenide c. Roumanie, n° 31679/96, 25 janvier 2000.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht