Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z.J. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Z.J. v. Lithuania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Z. J. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 60092/12

  Whilst national authorities must do their utmost to bring about such co-operation, their possibilities of applying coercion in this respect are limited since the interests as well as the rights and freedoms of all concerned must be taken into account, notably the children's interests and their rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 60092/12

  The Court recalls that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life; furthermore, the natural family relationship is not terminated by reason of the fact that the child is taken into care (see, mutatis mutandis, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 59, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 60092/12

  However, any obligation to apply coercion in this area had to be limited, since the rights and freedoms of all concerned had to be taken into account, and more particularly the best interests of the child and his or her rights under Article 8 of the Convention (the Government referred to Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 60092/12

  Thus, where the existence of a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures that will enable parent and child to be reunited (see Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, § 91, Series A no. 226-A; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; and Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 51, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 25.02.1992 - 12963/87

  MARGARETA AND ROGER ANDERSSON v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 60092/12

  Thus, where the existence of a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures that will enable parent and child to be reunited (see Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden, 25 February 1992, § 91, Series A no. 226-A; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; and Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 51, ECHR 2000-IX).

• EGMR, 29.10.2019 - 67068/11

  STANKUNAITE v. LITHUANIA

  Other domestic law as to a child's right to live with his or her natural parents, the grounds for restriction of parental authority and the institution of care and guardianship are reproduced in the judgment Z.J. v. Lithuania (no. 60092/12, §§ 68-70, 29 April 2014).

  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 regarding child custody and access issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see Sahin, cited above, § 64; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); C. v. Finland, no. 18249/02, § 52, 9 May 2006; and Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 96, 29 April 2014).

• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

  Q AND R v. SLOVENIA

  The Court must therefore determine whether, having regard to the circumstances of the case and notably the importance of the decisions to be taken, the applicants have been involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide them with the requisite protection of their interests (see Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 100, 29 April 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 23608/16

  PETROV AND X v. RUSSIA

  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 regarding child custody and access issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); C. v. Finland, no. 18249/02, § 52, 9 May 2006; and Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 96, 29 April 2014).

 
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 71776/12

  N.TS. AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The Court further notes that, whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the applicant must be involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him or her with the requisite protection of his interests, as safeguarded by that Article (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 100, 29 April 2014; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 52, ECHR 2000-VIII; and W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, § 64, Series A no. 121).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76598/12

  KHUSNUTDINOV AND X v. RUSSIA

  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 regarding child custody and access issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see Sahin, cited above, § 64; Sommerfeld v. Germany [GC], no. 31871/96, § 62, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts); C. v. Finland, no. 18249/02, § 52, 9 May 2006; and Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 96, 29 April 2014).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 6878/14

  LAZORIVA v. UKRAINE

  Whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the applicant must be involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him or her with the requisite protection of his interests, as safeguarded by that Article (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 52, ECHR 2000-VIII; Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 100, 29 April 2014; and W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, § 64, Series A no. 121).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 15646/18

  BÎZDÎGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Although Article 8 of the Convention contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process must be fair and such as to ensure due respect for the interests safeguarded by this provision (see Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 100, 29 April 2014).
• EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 44870/19

  AGARWAL v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Thus, the Court's task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding child custody and access issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their power of appreciation (see, for example, Sommerfeld, cited above, § 62; Dostál v. the Czech Republic, no. 26739/04, § 55, 21 February 2006; and Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 96, 29 April 2014).
• EGMR, 20.10.2022 - 46342/19

  BIERSKI v. POLAND

  In this respect, the Court reiterates that, whilst Article 8 contains no explicit procedural requirements, the applicant must be involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him or her with the requisite protection of his interests, as safeguarded by that Article (see Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 52, ECHR 2000-VIII; Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 100, 29 April 2014; and W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, § 64, Series A no. 121).
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 58282/19

  H.P. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Undoubtedly, consideration of what lies in the best interests of the child is of crucial importance in every case of this kind (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 64, ECHR 2003-VIII; C. v. Finland, no. 18249/02, § 52, 9 May 2006; and Z.J. v. Lithuania, no. 60092/12, § 96, 29 April 2014).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 46427/19

  VLASENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 36048/17

  THOMPSON v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 58767/15

  KRAMER v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 42825/17

  ROCHE v. MALTA
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77180/11

  LEONOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 55669/13

  BÂRDAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.04.2023 - 20647/21

  KARAS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 23.07.2019 - 21243/17

  SIRVINSKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 70135/14

  MALININ v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 77546/14

  ELITA MAGOMADOVA v. RUSSIA