Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ROMAN v. FINLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Röman v. Finland

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 17038/04

  GRONMARK CONTRE LA FINLANDE ET 3 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  The Court has also on several occasions found that it has difficulties in accepting inflexible limitation periods which do not provide any exceptions to the application of that period (see, mutatis mutandis, Shofman v. Russia, cited above, § 43; Grönmark v. Finland, no. 17038/04, § 55, 6 July 2010; and Backlund v. Finland, no. 36498/05, § 53, 6 July 2010).

  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged (see Grönmark v. Finland (just satisfaction), no. 17038/04, §§ 14-15, 12 July 2011; and Backlund v. Finland (just satisfaction), no. 36498/05, §§ 14-15, 12 July 2011); it therefore rejects this claim.

• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 23890/02

  PHINIKARIDOU c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  The Court notes that it has already had occasion to observe that a significant number of States do not set a limitation period for children to bring an action aimed at having paternity established and that there is a tendency towards a greater protection of the right of the child to have his paternal affiliation established (see Phinikaridou v. Cyprus, no. 23890/02, ECHR 2007-XIV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  In this connection the Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32).

 
• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  The Court points out that it has previously accepted that the introduction of a time-limit for the institution of paternity proceedings was justified by the desire to ensure legal certainty and finality in family relations (see, for example, Mizzi v. Malta, cited above, § 88; and Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 41, Series A no. 87).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  The Court reiterates that its task is not to substitute itself for the competent domestic authorities in regulating paternity disputes at the national level, but rather to review under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, inter alia, Rózanski v. Poland, no. 55339/00, § 62, 18 May 2006; Mikulic v. Croatia, cited above, § 59; and Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 42326/98

  Schutz des Rechts auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Familienlebens; Möglichkeit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  In the instant case the Court is not called upon to determine whether the proceedings to establish parental ties between the applicant and her biological father concern "family life" within the meaning of Article 8, since in any event the right to know one's ascendants falls within the scope of the concept of "private life", which encompasses important aspects of one's personal identity, such as the identity of one's parents (see Odièvre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, § 29, ECHR 2003-III, and Mikulic v. Croatia, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006-X).
• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 31, Series A no. 297-C; and Mikulic v. Croatia, cited above, § 57).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; and Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, cited above).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 58757/00

  JÄGGI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 13072/05

  The Court has held on numerous occasions that paternity proceedings fall within the scope of Article 8 (see Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Jäggi v. Switzerland, no. 58757/00, § 25, ECHR 2006-X).

• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

  MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  It is therefore difficult to accept inflexible limitation periods admitting of no exceptions (see, mutatis mutandis, Röman v. Finland, no. 13072/05, § 50, 29 January 2013).
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 3004/10

  MARINIS c. GRÈCE

  [3] Depuis l'affaire Shofman c. Russie, no 74826/01, §§ 39 et 46, 24 novembre 2005, la Cour a soutenu cette primauté sans tergiverser, par exemple dans Mizzi c. Malte, no 26111/02, § 89, CEDH 2006-I, Paulík c. Slovaquie, no 10699/05, § 58, CEDH 2006-XI, Tavlı c. Turquie, no 11449/02, § 36, 9 novembre 2006, Phinikaridou c. Chypre, no 23890/02, § 65, 20 décembre 2007, Grönmark c. Finlande, no 17038/04, § 55, 6 juillet 2010, Röman c. Finlande, no 13072/05, § 60, 29 janvier 2013, 0stace c. Roumanie, no 12547/06, §§ 50 et 51, 25 février 2014, et Tsvetelin Petkov c. Bulgarie, no 2641/06, § 58, 15 juillet 2014.
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 25057/11

  CALIN ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Ces obligations positives peuvent impliquer l'adoption de mesures visant au respect de la vie privée jusque dans les relations des individus entre eux (Kroon et autres, précité, § 31, et Röman c. Finlande, no 13072/05, § 45, 29 janvier 2013).
• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 56513/17

  c.P. ET M.N. c. FRANCE

  Elle juge toutefois qu'un délai rigide conduisant à une impossibilité absolue d'exercer une action en recherche de paternité, appliqué indépendamment des circonstances de l'espèce, porte atteinte à la substance même du droit au respect de la vie privée garanti par l'article 8 de la Convention (Backlund, précité, §§ 55-57, Grönmark c. Finlande, no 17038/04, §§ 55 et 57, 6 juillet 2010, Röman c. Finlande, no 13072/05, §§ 55-58, 29 janvier 2013, et Doktorov c. Bulgarie, no 15074/08, §§ 31-32, 5 avril 2018).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 69997/17

  LAVANCHY c. SUISSE

  En ce qui concerne le premier cas de figure, la Cour a conclu à une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention lorsque le délai a été appliqué de manière rigide sans prendre en compte si l'enfant avait ou non eu connaissance des circonstances se rapportant à l'identité de son père (voir Phinikaridou, précité, Backlund c. Finlande, no 36498/05, 6 juillet 2010, et Röman c. Finlande, no 13072/05, 29 janvier 2013).