Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.S. v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10
• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 36337/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10

  It is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 40, Series A no. 33; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, § 27; and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 67, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10

  It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether it has been observed it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 40, § 35).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10

  The purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10

  The Court further reiterates that the rule of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, § 34).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 150 and 152; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 65, 12 June 2008; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10

  It is in the first place for the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case; the Court's task is to review under the Convention the decisions of those authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 40, Series A no. 33; Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75, § 27; and Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 67, 27 March 2008).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 36337/10

  While the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective "respect" for private and family life, and these obligations may involve the adoption of measures in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y v. the Netherlands, X and Y v. Croatia, no. 5193/09, §§ 23-24, 3 November 2011; Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-I and 27; and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 44, 5 March 2009).