Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAJDUOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03
• EGMR, 08.03.2012 - 2660/03

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  For a summary of relevant international material see the Court's judgment in Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, §§ 72-86, ECHR 2009-..., in particular the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe's Recommendation Rec(2002)5 of 30 April 2002 on the protection of women against violence.

  In making this conclusion, the Court has also taken into consideration the applicant's personal circumstances, the particular vulnerability of victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection (see Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 65, 12 June 2008 and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 132, ECHR 2009-...) and that the Convention is intended to guarantee rights that are not theoretical or illusory, but rights that are practical and effective (see, for example, Matthews v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24833/94, § 34, ECHR 1999-I and the Court's decision in the case of Kontrová (cited above)).

• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  The Court notes in this respect that the particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection has been emphasised in a number of international instruments (see the reference to the Court's judgment in the case of Opuz at paragraph 27 above and the Court's judgments in Bevacqua, cited above, §§ 64-65, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 44-45, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38719/97

  D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002 and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII, and most recently the Court's judgment in the case of A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010 (not yet final)).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 74 and 75, ECHR 1999-V and Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002 and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII, and most recently the Court's judgment in the case of A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010 (not yet final)).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  Accordingly, it has recognised that Article 35 must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism (see Cardot v. France, 19 March 1991, § 34, Series A no. 200).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  The inclusion of the word "security" simply serves to emphasise the requirement that detention may not be arbitrary (Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, §§ 54 and 60, Series A no. 111).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

  VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  It has further recognised that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is neither absolute nor capable of being applied automatically; in reviewing whether the rule has been observed, it is essential to have regard to the particular circumstances of the individual case (see Van Oosterwijck v. Belgium, 6 November 1980, § 35, Series A no. 40).