Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 38647/09 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2017,16952) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ÓNODI v. HUNGARY
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
ÓNODI v. HUNGARY
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01
MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 38647/09
The Court reiterates that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005 and Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 60, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). - EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07
PLAZA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 38647/09
The child's best interests must be the primary consideration and may, depending on their nature and seriousness, override those of the parents (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII and Plaza v. Poland, no. 18830/07, § 71, 25 January 2011). - EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 39438/13
NAZARENKO v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 38647/09
The Court reiterates that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005 and Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 60, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
- EGMR - 45513/21 (anhängig)
PIPA v. HUNGARY
Has there been a violation of the applicant's right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the authorities observed their positive obligations under Article 8 to ensure that the applicant could properly exercise his right of access to his child (Ónodi v. Hungary, no. 38647/09, §§ 29-33, 30 May 2017)?.