Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKOWSKI v. POLAND

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BÄ"KOWSKI v. POLAND

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

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

• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  In so far as the applicant submitted that the authorities had refused to compel the mother and the child to undergo a DNA test, the Court observes that as it emerges from its case-law, while, on the one hand, people in the applicant's situation have a vital interest in receiving the information necessary to uncover the truth about an important aspect of their personal identity, the protection of third persons may, on the other hand, preclude their being compelled to make themselves available for medical testing of any kind, including DNA testing (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 64, ECHR 2002-I, and Bagniewski v. Poland, no. 28475/14, § 54, 31 May 2018).
• EGMR, 29.06.1999 - 27110/95

  NYLUND contre la FINLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  The Court considers that given the circumstances of the present case, and in view of M."s young age, it was justifiable for the domestic authorities to give greater weight to the interests of the child than to the interest of the applicant in obtaining the determination of a biological fact (see Iyilik v. Turkey, no. 2899/05 § 34, 6 December 2011; Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI; and K??ákal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39277/06, 8 January 2007).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 2899/05

  IYILIK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  The Court considers that given the circumstances of the present case, and in view of M."s young age, it was justifiable for the domestic authorities to give greater weight to the interests of the child than to the interest of the applicant in obtaining the determination of a biological fact (see Iyilik v. Turkey, no. 2899/05 § 34, 6 December 2011; Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI; and K??ákal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39277/06, 8 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 28475/14

  BAGNIEWSKI c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  In so far as the applicant submitted that the authorities had refused to compel the mother and the child to undergo a DNA test, the Court observes that as it emerges from its case-law, while, on the one hand, people in the applicant's situation have a vital interest in receiving the information necessary to uncover the truth about an important aspect of their personal identity, the protection of third persons may, on the other hand, preclude their being compelled to make themselves available for medical testing of any kind, including DNA testing (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 64, ECHR 2002-I, and Bagniewski v. Poland, no. 28475/14, § 54, 31 May 2018).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 37583/04

  M.D. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  Furthermore, the Court considers that, contrary to the case of Mizzi v. Malta, in the present case the applicant did not submit any convincing scientific evidence to the prosecutor to substantiate his doubts as to his paternity (see Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); Darmon v. Poland (dec.), no. 7802/05, 17 November 2009; and M.D. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 37583/04, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 08.01.2007 - 39277/06

  KNÁKAL c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  The Court considers that given the circumstances of the present case, and in view of M."s young age, it was justifiable for the domestic authorities to give greater weight to the interests of the child than to the interest of the applicant in obtaining the determination of a biological fact (see Iyilik v. Turkey, no. 2899/05 § 34, 6 December 2011; Nylund v. Finland (dec.), no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI; and K??ákal v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 39277/06, 8 January 2007).
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 7802/05

  DARMON v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 48493/11

  Furthermore, the Court considers that, contrary to the case of Mizzi v. Malta, in the present case the applicant did not submit any convincing scientific evidence to the prosecutor to substantiate his doubts as to his paternity (see Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); Darmon v. Poland (dec.), no. 7802/05, 17 November 2009; and M.D. v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 37583/04, 15 November 2011).