Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DIAMANTE AND PELLICCIONI v. SAN MARINO

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 8 No violation of P4-2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 42402/05

  Rechtssache W. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  42402/05 and 42423/05, 29 January 2008).

  However, it is evident from the facts of the case that there have not been any significant lapses of inactivity, or adjournments for reasons related to internal organisation (see, a contrario Veljkov v. Serbia, no. 23087/07, § 88, 19 April 2011 and Wildgruber v. Germany, nos. 42402/05 and 42423/05, § 61, 21 January 2010).

• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  Thus, freedom of movement prohibits any measure liable to infringe that right or to restrict the exercise thereof which is not "in accordance with the law" and does not satisfy the requirement of a measure which can be considered "necessary in a democratic society" in the pursuit of the legitimate aims referred to in the third and fourth paragraph of the above-mentioned Article (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V (extracts).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  First of all, in the balancing process particular importance must be attached to the best interests of the child which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parents (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, §§ 66 and 67, 6 December 2007, and Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 14613/03

  NIKIFORENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  As regards the proportionality of the interference, the Court has particular regard to the duration of the measure in question (see Nikiforenko v. Ukraine, no. 14613/03, § 56, 18 February 2010).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court cannot confine itself to considering the impugned decisions in isolation, but must look at them in the light of the case as a whole; it must determine whether the reasons adduced by the domestic courts were relevant and sufficient (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 68, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  Undoubtedly, consideration of what lies in the best interest of the child is of crucial importance (see Zawadka, cited above, § 54, and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84

  NIELSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  Family life in this sense, and especially the rights of parents to exercise parental authority over their children, having due regard to their corresponding parental responsibilities, is recognised and protected by the Convention, in particular by Article 8 (see Nielsen v. Denmark, 28 November 1988, § 61, Series A no. 144).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  The mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life even when the relationship between the parents has broken down (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 50, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  HOFFMANN c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  Domestic measures hindering enjoyment of family life such as a decision granting custody over children to a parent constitutes an interference with the right to respect for family life (see, for example, Hoffmann v. Austria, judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58, § 29, and Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 30, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 of the Convention and, whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2000-VIII).

• EGMR, 05.06.2015 - 46043/14

  Schutzpflichten gegenüber dem Leben eines Patienten mit apallischem Syndrom bei …

  39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138"139, ECHR 2000"VIII; ?neersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, § 61, 12 July 2011; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 146-47, 27 September 2011; A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 48-50, 8 January 2013; and Raw and Others v. France, no. 10131/11, §§ 51-52, 7 March 2013).
• EGMR, 18.01.2018 - 48151/11

  FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES ASSOCIATIONS ET SYNDICATS DE SPORTIFS (FNASS) ET AUTRES …

  Quant aux atteintes à la liberté de quitter n'importe quel pays y compris le sien, il indique qu'elles concernent des interdictions administratives ou judiciaires, telles qu'une obligation d'autorisation préalable pour quitter le pays (Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, 27 septembre 2011), la confiscation d'un passeport (Baumann, précité ; Nalbantski c. Bulgarie, no 30943/04, 10 février 2011) ou le refus de délivrer un document de voyage (Soltysyak c. Russie, no 4663/05, 10 février 2011 ; Ignatov c. Bulgarie, no 50/02, 2 juillet 2009).
• EGMR, 07.03.2013 - 10131/11

  RAW ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  La Cour a par la suite expressément admis sur le fondement de cette jurisprudence qu'un parent pouvait, sans l'accord de l'autre parent, la saisir au nom de son enfant mineur pour dénoncer une violation de la Convention résultant de décisions prises dans le contexte d'un contentieux l'opposant à l'autre parent quant au droit de garde (Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, §§ 146-147, 27 septembre 2011).

  Il est vrai que la Cour a admis qu'un parent pouvait, sans l'accord de l'autre, la saisir au nom de son enfant mineur pour dénoncer une violation de la Convention résultant de décisions prises dans le contexte d'un contentieux l'opposant à l'autre parent quant au droit de garde (Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, §§ 146-147, 27 septembre 2011).

 
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 4097/13

  M.A. v. AUSTRIA

  However, the Court reiterates that that the lack of co-operation between separated parents is not a circumstance which by itself may exempt the authorities form their positive obligations under Article 8 (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 176, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29713/05

  STAMOSE v. BULGARIA

  In previous cases under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 the Court (or the former European Commission of Human Rights) has been concerned with such bans imposed in connection with pending criminal proceedings (see Schmid v. Austria, no. 10670/83, Commission decision of 9 July 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 44, p. 195; Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, ECHR 2001-V; Földes and Földesné Hajlik v. Hungary, no. 41463/02, ECHR 2006-XII; Sissanis v. Romania, no. 23468/02, 25 January 2007; Bessenyei v. Hungary, no. 37509/06, 21 October 2008; A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, 31 March 2009; Iordan Iordanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 23530/02, 2 July 2009; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, 24 January 2012), enforcement of criminal sentences (see M. v. Germany, no. 10307/83, Commission decision of 6 March 1984, DR 37, p. 113), lack of rehabilitation in respect of criminal offences (see Nalbantski v. Bulgaria, no. 30943/04, 10 February 2011), pending bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, ECHR 2003-IX), refusal to pay customs penalties (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, 13 November 2003), failure to pay taxes (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, 23 May 2006), failure to pay judgment debts to private persons (see Ignatov v. Bulgaria, no. 50/02, 2 July 2009, and Gochev v. Bulgaria, no. 34383/03, 26 November 2009), knowledge of "State secrets" (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, ECHR 2006-XV), failure to comply with military-service obligations (see Peltonen v. Finland, no. 19583/92, Commission decision of 20 February 1995, DR 80-a, p. 38, and Marangos v. Cyprus, no. 31106/96, Commission decision of 20 May 1997, unreported), mental illness coupled with a lack of arrangements for appropriate care in the destination country (see Nordblad v. Sweden, no. 19076/91, Commission decision of 13 October 1993, unreported), and court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 43229/18

  Y.Y. AND Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  For instance, an aunt with no parental authority over the children concerned (see N.Ts. and Others v. Georgia, no. 71776/12, §§ 52-59, 2 February 2016); a biological mother, following the adoption of the child (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 46-50, 8 January 2013); mothers deprived of parental authority by the State admitted as applicants on behalf of their children, who had been placed in a State institution (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 146, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 11.07.2013 - 28975/05

  KHLYUSTOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined the proportionality of travel restrictions which were imposed in various contexts: a travel ban imposed as a measure of police supervision of a person suspected of having connections with the Mafia (see Labita, cited above, §§ 193-197); the seizure, as part of the on-the-spot investigation, and subsequent confiscation of a passport of a person who was neither prosecuted nor considered to be a witness in the criminal proceedings (see Baumann, cited above, §§ 65-67); a prohibition on a bankrupt moving away from his place of residence for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings (see Luordo v. Italy, no. 32190/96, §§ 96-97, ECHR 2003-IX); the seizure of the applicant's passport for refusal to pay a fine for a customs offence (see Napijalo v. Croatia, no. 66485/01, §§ 78-82, 13 November 2003); an obligation not to abscond imposed on a suspect pending criminal proceedings against him (see, among many other examples, Fedorov and Fedorova v. Russia, no. 31008/02, §§ 39-47, 13 October 2005; Antonenkov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 14183/02, §§ 59-67, 22 November 2005; Ivanov v. Ukraine, no. 15007/02, §§ 90-97, 7 December 2006; Hajibeyli v. Azerbaijan, no. 16528/05, §§ 60-69, 10 July 2008; Makedonski v. Bulgaria, no. 36036/04, §§ 39-46, 20 January 2011; Pfeifer v. Bulgaria, no. 24733/04, §§ 55-58, 17 February 2011; Prescher v. Bulgaria, no. 6767/04, §§ 47-52, 7 June 2011; and Miazdzyk v. Poland, no. 23592/07, §§ 33-42, 24 January 2012); travel restrictions imposed for refusal to pay a tax debt (see Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, §§ 118-130, 23 May 2006); travel restrictions imposed on account of knowledge of State secrets (see Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 44-52, ECHR 2006-XV, and Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 46-54, 10 February 2011); court orders prohibiting minor children from being removed to a foreign country (see Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 214-215, 27 September 2011); and a travel ban imposed on account of a breach of the immigration rules of another country (see Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, §§ 33-37, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 33169/10

  POLIDARIO c. SUISSE

  Toutefois, la Cour attache beaucoup d'importance au fait que la requérante ne put maintenir aucun contact autre que téléphonique avec son enfant pendant plusieurs années (voir, a contrario, Diamante et Pelliccioni c. Saint-Marin, no 32250/08, § 185, 27 septembre 2011, et mutatis mutandis Cengiz Kılıç c. Turquie, no 16192/06, § 127, 6 décembre 2011).
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 61365/16

  S.E.v. SERBIA

  However, the Court and the Commission have previously been called upon to examine situations in which an applicant had already acquired a travel document which was subsequently seized, which he or she was arbitrarily denied the use of, or which was not reissued merely as a result of a decision by the State authorities to restrict or deny his or her right to leave a country on account of a travel ban/sanction or because of his or her failure to comply with the relevant legal or factual requirements prescribed by law (see, among many authorities, Peltonen, cited above, concerning a refusal to issue a passport to a Finnish national to ensure the performance of military service; Baumann, cited above, § 63, and A.E. v. Poland, no. 14480/04, §§ 47-50, 31 March 2009, in the context of a pending criminal prosecution; Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 110, 23 May 2006, and Stamose v. Bulgaria, no. 29713/05, § 30, ECHR 2012, concerning a travel ban and passport retention on the basis of a nine-year tax dispute and breaches of immigration laws respectively; Soltysyak v. Russia, no. 4663/05, §§ 37-38, 10 February 2011, and Bartik v. Russia, no. 55565/00, §§ 35-36, ECHR 2006-XV, in the context of refusal to issue a travel document to nationals because of knowledge of "State secrets"; Battista v. Italy, no. 43978/09, §§ 26 and 37, ECHR 2014, concerning an inability, owing to a failure to pay child maintenance, to obtain a new identity document valid for travel abroad; Roldan Texeira and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 40655/98, 26 October 2000, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 212-215, 27 September 2011, in the context of restrictions imposed by court orders or the police on minor children travelling abroad to protect their interests or those of their parents).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  A.K. AND L. v. CROATIA

  However, all issues relevant for his right to respect for his private and family life which occurred in the proceedings concerning the severing of his ties with his biological mother before his adoption, should be examined by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII, § 138; Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, § 32, 27 April 2010; Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 114, 30 November 2010; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 146, 27 September 2011; and M.D. and Others v. Malta, no. 64791/10, § 27, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 26504/20

  ANAGNOSTAKIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 56578/11

  A.A.K. c. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 4952/21

  N.V. AND C.C. v. MALTA
• EGMR, 31.08.2023 - 57752/21

  X v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2021 - 46075/16

  ANAGNOSTAKIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  M.D. AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 42825/17

  ROCHE v. MALTA
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 28129/05

  COSAC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR - 57184/22 (anhängig)

  N.P. AND V.P. v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2021 - 9410/20

  I.S. AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  ISAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 1902/11

  SANDRU c. ROUMANIE