Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.J.P. AND E.S. v. SWEDEN

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 8610/11
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 8610/11

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 8610/11

  It is not the Court's task to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding public care and access 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, § 55, and Johansen v. Norway, 7 August 1996, § 64, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III).

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures, but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299, p. 20, § 55).".

• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 8610/11

  Account must also be taken of the fact 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, § 90).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 8610/11

  In carrying out this assessment, the Court will consider whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures were relevant and sufficient for the purpose of paragraph 2 of Article 8 (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, § 68).

• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

  Q AND R v. SLOVENIA

  It is not the Court's task to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding contact issues but rather to review under the Convention the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see S.J.P. and E.S. v. Sweden, no. 8610/11, §§ 89 and 91, 28 August 2018, and Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, §§ 132 and 133, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 45889/18

  A.L. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  With regard to contact rights, the applicants emphasised that the present case differed from Levin v. Sweden (no. 35131/06, 15 March 2012) and S.J.P. and E.S. v. Sweden (no. 8610/11, 28 August 2018).
• EGMR, 10.05.2022 - 21238/18

  BARSEGHYAN v. SWEDEN

  That being the case, the Court observes that at the time when he applied to the Court, the relevant remedies under Article 35 § 1 would be of a declaratory and compensatory nature (see, in contrast, S.J.P. and E.S. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 8610/11, § 72, 16 December 2014).