Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOLOMON v. ROMANIA

  Art. 6, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13071/87

  EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42799/05

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that it is the domestic courts which are best placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in a case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 29.08.2000 - 40490/98

  JAHNKE and LENOBLE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42799/05

  In respect of the applicant's allegation that the Court of Appeal failed to provide reasons for dismissing the applicant's request for further evidence to be obtained, the Court observes that while courts are obliged to give reasons for their decisions, Article 6 § 1 cannot be understood as requiring a detailed answer to every argument (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29, Series A no. 303-A; Jahnke and Lenoble v. France (dec.), no. 40490/98, ECHR 2000-IX; and Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 80, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 27.10.1993 - 14448/88

  DOMBO BEHEER B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42799/05

  As regards litigation involving opposing private interests, equality of arms implies that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case - including his evidence - under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (see Dombo Beheer v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1993, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 274).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42799/05

  It follows that the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding access issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their margin of appreciation (see, inter alia, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 48, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42799/05

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that it is the domestic courts which are best placed for assessing the relevance of evidence to the issues in a case (see, amongst many authorities, Vidal v. Belgium, 22 April 1992, § 32, Series A no. 235-B; Edwards v. the United Kingdom, 16 December 1992, § 34, Series A no. 247-B).
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 42799/05

  The Court further observes that a fair balance must be struck between the interests of the child and those of the parent (see, for example, the Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), and that in doing so particular importance must be attached to the best interests of the child, which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parent.