Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHAW v. HUNGARY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Shaw v. Hungary

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, inter alia, Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 352, ECHR 2003-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  In relation 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 being reunited with his child and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunion (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, cited above, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII and Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that the Convention must be applied in accordance with the principles of international law, in particular with those relating to the international protection of human rights (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 90, ECHR 2001-II, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  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 Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  In cases concerning the enforcement of decisions in the sphere of family law, the Court has repeatedly held that what is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all necessary steps to facilitate the execution as can reasonable be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 53, Series A no. 299-A; Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 96; Nuutinen v. Finland, cited above, § 128, and Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 59, 24 April 2003).

• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 10772/21

  FERNANDES DE ARA?JO v. ROMANIA

  The general principles concerning domestic court orders and their implementation in respect of custody and/or contacts between parents and their children, including a return order issued under the Hague Convention, have been summarised, inter alia, in Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania (no. 31679/96, §§ 94-96 and 102, ECHR 2000-I), Shaw v. Hungary, (no. 6457/09, §§ 63-68, 26 July 2011), Strumia v. Italy, (no. 53377/13, §§ 110-11, 23 June 2016), and I.M. and Others v. Italy, (no. 25426/20, §§ 106-08, 10 November 2022).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14

  VILENCHIK v. UKRAINE

  The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013) as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 70, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).

  The delays in the procedure alone may enable the Court to conclude that the authorities had not complied with their positive obligations under the Convention (see, for example, Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011).

• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 28110/08

  ÖZMEN c. TURQUIE

  Nous aurions préféré que la Cour se prononce sur cet aspect (voir par exemple Shaw c. Hongrie, no 6457/09, § 75, 26 juillet 2011).

 
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 80606/17

  MOGA v. POLAND

  The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of children and the procedural obligations of the States are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013), as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 70, 26 July 2011; Ad?¾ic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, 54 and 55, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 2171/14

  G.N. v. POLAND

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 26.10.2023 - 32662/20

  VASSALLO v. HUNGARY

  Merits 23. The principles relevant to the present case can be found in the judgments X v. Latvia (cited above, §§ 93-108), Shaw v. Hungary (no. 6457/09, § 70, 26 July 2011) and R.S. v. Poland (no. 63777/09, §§ 54-55, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  K.J. v. POLAND

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 37024/20

  CZAJKOWSKI v. ROMANIA

  The general principles concerning the domestic courts' orders and their implementation in respect of custody and/or contacts between parents and their children, including a return order issued under the Hague Convention, and a repeated and consistent refusal of a child to see a parent, have been summarised, inter alia, in Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC] (no. 31871/96, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts)) with further references, Shaw v. Hungary (no. 6457/09, §§ 63-68, 26 July 2011), Strumia v. Italy (no. 53377/13, §§ 110-11, 23 June 2016, and I.M. and Others v. Italy, no. 25426/20, §§ 106-08, 10 November 2022).
• EGMR, 28.01.2021 - 12354/19

  SATANOVSKA AND RODGERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court's assessment 30. The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's judgment in the case of X v. Latvia ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, ECHR 2013), as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 70, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 20425/20

  LOIRY v. ROMANIA

  The general principles concerning the domestic courts' orders and their implementation in respect of custody and/or contacts between a parent and his child, including a return order issued under the Hague Convention have been summarised, inter alia, in, Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC] (no. 31871/96, §§ 64-65, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts), Shaw v. Hungary (no. 6457/09, §§ 63-68, 26 July 2011), and Strumia v. Italy (no. 53377/13, §§ 110-11, 23 June 2016).
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 16202/14

  M.V. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 46386/10

  HALLIER ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11

  E.S. v. ROMANIA AND BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 28383/20

  A ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 61984/17

  MAKHMUDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 5493/13

  CAVANI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 4993/15

  B.S. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 46524/14

  TONELLO v. HUNGARY