Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHUSNUTDINOV AND X v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Arrêt Khusnutdinov and X c. Russie - le refus du retour de l'enfant chez son père répondait à son intérêt supérieur

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Pressemitteilung)

  Judgment Khusnutdinov and X v. Russia - refusal to return child to father was in the best interest of it

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KHUSNUTDINOV AND KHUSNUTDINOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76598/12

  Consequently, even where the parent has been deprived of parental rights, his or her standing as the natural parent suffices to afford him or her the necessary power to apply to the Court on the child's behalf too, in order to protect his or her interests (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, where the mother who had been deprived of parental rights acted on behalf of her children who had been placed under the guardianship of a foster family; P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56547/00, 11 December 2001, where the natural parents acted on behalf of their daughter who had been adopted by another family; and Siebert, cited above, where the natural father who had never had parental rights in respect of his daughter born out of wedlock acted on her behalf even though she was under the guardianship of her aunt).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76598/12

  Consequently, even where the parent has been deprived of parental rights, his or her standing as the natural parent suffices to afford him or her the necessary power to apply to the Court on the child's behalf too, in order to protect his or her interests (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, where the mother who had been deprived of parental rights acted on behalf of her children who had been placed under the guardianship of a foster family; P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56547/00, 11 December 2001, where the natural parents acted on behalf of their daughter who had been adopted by another family; and Siebert, cited above, where the natural father who had never had parental rights in respect of his daughter born out of wedlock acted on her behalf even though she was under the guardianship of her aunt).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76598/12

  The present case was therefore similar to the case of Hokkanen v. Finland (23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A), where the Court had found that the domestic authorities" decision to transfer custody over the applicant's daughter to the girl's grandparents had not breached Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 29.04.2014 - 60092/12

  Z.J. v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76598/12

  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, 25.01.2011 - 18830/07

  PLAZA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76598/12

  Article 8 requires that the domestic authorities should strike a fair balance between the interests of the child and those of the parents and that, in the balancing process, primary importance should be attached to the best interests of the child, which, depending on their nature and seriousness, may override those of the parents (see Sahin v. Germany [GC], no. 30943/96, § 66, ECHR 2003-VIII, and P?‚aza v. Poland, no. 18830/07, § 71, 25 January 2011).

• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 19938/20

  Q AND R v. SLOVENIA

  The Court reiterates the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention system (see, e.g., Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 117, with further references, ECHR 2005-IX) and notes that as a general rule it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, including the means used to ascertain the relevant facts (see Khusnutdinov and X v. Russia, no. 76598/12, § 87, 18 December 2018, and Süß v. Germany, no. 40324/98, § 59, 10 November 2005).
• EGMR, 16.01.2020 - 3368/18

  OLURI v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  They were recently restated in the case of Khusnutdinov and X v. Russia (no. 76598/12, §§ 76-83, 18 December 2018).
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 58767/15

  KRAMER v. CROATIA

  The mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life, and domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with a right protected by Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Khusnutdinov and X v. Russia, no. 76598/12, § 76, 18 December 2018, and K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 151, ECHR 2001-VII).