Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,31967
EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94 (https://dejure.org/2000,31967)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.04.2000 - 25651/94 (https://dejure.org/2000,31967)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. April 2000 - 25651/94 (https://dejure.org/2000,31967)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,31967) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    L. v. FINLAND

    Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
    No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings Costs and expenses partial award - domestic ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1985 - 8734/79

    Barthold ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94
    It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply the domestic law (see the Barthold v. Germany judgment of 25 March 1985, Series A no. 90, § 48).
  • EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

    OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94
    In determining whether the impugned measures were "necessary in a democratic society", the Court will consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify them were relevant and sufficient for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention (see, inter alia, the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1) judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, § 68).
  • EGMR, 26.04.1995 - 16922/90

    FISCHER c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94
    The Government refer to the judgments of the Court in the cases of Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2) (judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, § 21-22), Fischer v. Austria (judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, § 44) and Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2) (judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 46).
  • EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

    HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94
    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 that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, for instance, the Hokkanen v. Finland judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, § 55; the above-mentioned Johansen judgment, § 64; and the decision of 8 February 2000 as to the admissibility of application no. 34745/97 in the case of Scott v. the United Kingdom, Third Section, unpublished).
  • EGMR, 23.02.1994 - 18928/91

    FREDIN c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94
    The Government refer to the judgments of the Court in the cases of Fredin v. Sweden (no. 2) (judgment of 23 February 1994, Series A no. 283-A, § 21-22), Fischer v. Austria (judgment of 26 April 1995, Series A no. 312, § 44) and Allan Jacobsson v. Sweden (no. 2) (judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 46).
  • EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

    OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94
    Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the national authorities have the benefit of direct contact with all the persons concerned (see the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2) judgment of 27 November 1992, Series A no. 250, § 90), often at the very stage when care measures are being envisaged or immediately after their implementation.
  • EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

    MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 25651/94
    As regards protection against general arbitrariness alleged by the applicants, the Government wished to refer also to the procedural protection, including judicial supervision, which accompanies those general powers of social authorities which are necessary considering the great variety of circumstances in issues relating to the protection of children (see e.g. the Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 226, §§ 83-85).
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