Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  H.K. v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violations of Art. 8 (care order and access restrictions) No violation of Art. 8 (other aspects) Not necessary to examine under Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 36065/97
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 19.09.2000 - 40031/98

  GNAHORE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  As regards the extreme step of severing all parental links with a child, the Court has taken the view that such a measure would cut a child from its roots and could only be justified in exceptional circumstances or by the overriding requirement of the child's best interests (see Johansen, cited above, p. 1010, § 84, and Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  While the authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of taking a child into care, in particular where an emergency situation arises, the Court must still be satisfied in the particular case that there existed circumstances justifying the removal of the child, and it is for the respondent State to establish that a careful assessment of the impact of the proposed care measure on the parents and the child, as well as of the possible alternatives to taking the child into public care, was carried out prior to implementation of such a measure (see K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 166, ECHR 2001-VII, and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 67, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 34141/96

  R. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  The relevant legislation is outlined in the Court's judgments in K. and T. v. Finland [GC] (no. 25702/94, §§ 94-136, ECHR 2001-VII) and R. v. Finland (no. 34141/96, 30 May 2006).

 
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  It must be borne in mind that the national authorities have the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), judgment of 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, pp.
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  It follows from these considerations that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities for the regulation of the public care of children and the rights of parents whose children have been taken into care, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, for instance, Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 20, § 55; and Johansen, cited above, pp. 1003-04, § 64).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  Otherwise the parent will be unable to participate effectively in the decision-making process or to put forward in a fair or adequate manner those matters militating in favour of his or her ability to provide the child with proper care and protection (see McMichael v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 February 1995, Series A no. 307-B, p. 57, § 92, where the authorities did not disclose to the applicant parents reports relating to their child, and T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, ECHR 2001-V, where the applicant mother was not afforded an early opportunity to view a video of an interview of her daughter, crucial to the assessment of abuse in the case; see also Buchberger v. Austria, no. 32899/96, 20 December 2001).

• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  M.D. AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The Court has repeatedly dealt with cases concerning access, custody and care orders, and while it often considers such cases as falling under Article 8 of the Convention, including its "procedural" aspect (see, for example, H.K. v. Finland, no. 36065/97, 26 September 2006, Scozzari and Giunta, cited above; and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 151, 27 September 2011), it does not preclude that such cases be examined also under Article 6 (see, for example, B. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121, in respect of access rights; H. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120, in respect of access rights and adoption; and M. and S. v Italy and the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 2584/11, 13 March 2012, in respect of a taking into public care order).