Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R. AND H. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94

  Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  It follows that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family [Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX] On the other hand, it is clearly also in the child's interest to ensure its development in a sound environment, and a parent cannot be entitled under Article 8 to have such measures taken as would harm the child's health and development (see, among many other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Marsálek v. the Czech Republic, no. 8153/04, § 71, 4 April 2006).".

  Such further limitations entail the danger that the family relations between a young child and one or both parents would be effectively curtailed (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 49, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 67, ECHR 2002-I).

• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  The applicants had participated throughout the proceedings, (in contrast with B. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121) and had been represented throughout (in contrast with P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, ECHR 2002-VI).

  For these reasons, measures which deprive biological parents of the parental responsibilities and authorise adoption should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and can only be justified if they are motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests (see Aune v. Norway, no. 52502/07, § 66, 28 October 2010; Johansen, cited above, § 78 and, mutatis mutandis, P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 118, ECHR 2002-VI).

• EGMR, 18.01.2000 - 27618/95

  PESTI AND FRODL v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  27618/95 and 27619/95, ECHR 2000-I).

 
• EGMR, 30.05.2000 - 53183/99

  LOEWENGUTH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  There is nothing exceptional in appeal courts having limited powers of review of decisions of lower courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Loewenguth v. France (dec.), no 53183/99, ECHR 2000-VI, Pesti and Frodl v. Austria (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78028/01

  PINI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  Article 8 does not require that domestic authorities make endless attempts at family reunification; it only requires that they take all the necessary steps that can reasonably be demanded to facilitate the reunion of the child and his or her parents (Pini and Others v. Romania, nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, § 155, ECHR 2004-V (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.08.2007 - 66516/01

  L. H. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  Equally, the Court has observed that, when a considerable period of time has passed since a child was originally taken into public care, the interest of a child not to have his or her de facto family situation changed again may override the interests of the parents to have their family reunited (see, mutatis mutandis, K. and T. v. Finland, cited above, § 155; Hofmann v. Germany (dec.), no. 66516/01, 28 August 2007).
• EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 34745/97

  SCOTT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  The present case was therefore much closer to Scott v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34745/97, 8 February 2000, where the Court had upheld a decision to free the child of an alcoholic mother for adoption because the mother had had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings.
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42455/98

  G.H. B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  Those considerations also apply to the making of adoption orders and issues of post-adoption contact (G.H. B. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42455/98, 4 May 2000).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 8153/04

  MARSÁLEK c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  It follows that family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, if and when appropriate, to "rebuild" the family [Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX] On the other hand, it is clearly also in the child's interest to ensure its development in a sound environment, and a parent cannot be entitled under Article 8 to have such measures taken as would harm the child's health and development (see, among many other authorities, Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Marsálek v. the Czech Republic, no. 8153/04, § 71, 4 April 2006).".
• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 52502/07

  AUNE v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  For these reasons, measures which deprive biological parents of the parental responsibilities and authorise adoption should only be applied in exceptional circumstances and can only be justified if they are motivated by an overriding requirement pertaining to the child's best interests (see Aune v. Norway, no. 52502/07, § 66, 28 October 2010; Johansen, cited above, § 78 and, mutatis mutandis, P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 118, ECHR 2002-VI).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 27496/15

  MOHAMED HASAN v. NORWAY

  It is also recalled that, in R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, § 88, 31 May 2011, the Court held:.

  The Court has previously held that where social ties between a parent and his or her children have been very limited, "[t]his must have implications for the degree of protection that ought to be afforded to [the parent's] right to respect for family life under paragraph 1 of Article 8 when assessing the necessity of the interference under paragraph 2" (see, for example, Aune, cited above, § 69; and mutatis mutandis, P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 118, ECHR 2002-VI and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, § 88, 31 May 2011).

• EGMR, 10.12.2021 - 15379/16

  ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY

  La nature même de l'adoption implique que toute perspective réelle de réintégration dans la famille ou de réunification de la famille est exclue et que l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant dicte au contraire qu'il soit placé à titre permanent au sein d'une nouvelle famille (R. et H. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35348/06, § 88, 31 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 72850/14

  SOARES DE MELO c. PORTUGAL

  Pour arriver à ce constat la Cour a eu particulièrement égard aux considérations susmentionnées, à savoir, l'absence de violence ou d'abus d'ordre physique (comparer R. et H. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35348/06, § 85, 31 mai 2011), sexuel ou psychique à l'encontre des enfants, l'existence de liens affectifs forts avec ces derniers, l'absence de réponse de la part des services sociaux à la détresse matérielle de la requérante, mère d'une famille nombreuse, exerçant presque seule son rôle parental.

 
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 19554/09

  PONTES c. PORTUGAL

  Dans les affaires de déchéance de l'autorité parentale, l'intérêt de l'enfant doit passer avant toute autre considération (voir, en ce sens, Johansen c. Norvège, 7 août 1996, § 78, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-III ; Kearns c. France, no 35991/04, § 79, 10 janvier 2008 ; R. et H. c. Royaume-Uni, no 35348/06, §§ 73 et 81, 31 mai 2011 ; et l'article 21 de la Convention des Nations unies sur les droits de l'enfant).
• EGMR, 06.09.2018 - 2822/16

  JANSEN v. NORWAY

  In its judgment of 23 October 2014 (Norsk Retstidende (Rt.) 2014 page 976) the Supreme Court first set out the general principles with respect to contact rights, based on the Child Welfare Act, its preparatory works and related Supreme Court case-law, Article 9(3) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (see paragraph 69 below) and Article 8 of the Convention on the right to respect for family life as this provision had been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as Johansen v. Norway, cited above; R. and H. v. the United Kingdom (no. 35348/06, § 73, 31 May 2011); and Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC] (no. 41615/07, § 136, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 4547/10

  Y.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  First, the Court must examine whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures were "relevant and sufficient"; second it must be examined whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see K and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001-VII; R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38000/05, § 34, 30 September 2008; T.S. and D.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61540/09, 19 January 2010; A.D. and O.D. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28680/06, § 82, 16 March 2010; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010; and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, §§ 75 and 81, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 70879/11

  ILYA LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court has repeatedly held that measures which entail severing all parental links with a child would only be justified in exceptional circumstances by the overriding requirement of the child's best interests (see R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, § 81, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 58455/13

  N.P. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Firstly, the Court must examine whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures were "relevant and sufficient"; secondly it must be examined whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see K. and T. v. Finland, cited above, § 154; R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38000/05, § 34, 30 September 2008; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, ECHR 2010; and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, §§ 75 and 81, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 59435/10

  A.E.L. v. FINLAND

  First, the Court must examine whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures were "relevant and sufficient"; second it must be examined whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see K and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001-VII; A.D. and O.D. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28680/06, § 82, 16 March 2010; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010; and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, §§ 75 and 81, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 51555/09

  J. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  First, the Court must examine whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures were "relevant and sufficient"; second it must be examined whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see K and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001-VII; A.D. and O.D. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28680/06, § 82, 16 March 2010; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010; and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, §§ 75 and 81, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 01.12.2011 - 26971/07

  V. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 31253/18

  P.V. v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 57789/17

  A.D. v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  MAMCHUR c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 62110/10

  K.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 54419/19

  S.P. v. NORWAY