Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses - claim dismissed (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (122) Zitiert selbst (14)
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
The effect of Article 13 is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy to deal with the substance of an "arguable complaint" under the Convention and to grant appropriate relief (see, among many other authorities, the Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI). - EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95
PEERS v. GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 62936/00
MOISEYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court considers that the Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).
- EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00
MAYZIT v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02
KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 28.03.2006 - 72286/01
MELNIK v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
The Government have failed to submit evidence as to the existence of any domestic remedy by which the applicant could have complained about the general conditions of his detention, in particular with regard to the structural problem of overcrowding in Russian detention facilities, or that the remedies available to him were effective, that is to say that they could have prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or that they could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress (see, to the same effect, Melnik v. Ukraine, no. 72286/01, §§ 70-71, 28 March 2006; Dvoynykh v. Ukraine, no. 72277/01, § 72, 12 October 2006; and Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, § 112, 13 September 2005). - EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05
MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court considers that the Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by a prosecutor, a court or other State agencies, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant's detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern the applicant's personal situation (cf. Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004; Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001; and, most recently, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006). - EGMR, 02.06.2005 - 66460/01
NOVOSELOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 11968/86
B. ./. Österreich
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
After that date his detention no longer fell within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), but within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see, for instance, B. v. Austria, judgment of 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175, pp. 14-16, §§ 36-39). - EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 62208/00
LABZOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
The Court has frequently found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of lack of personal space afforded to detainees (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 104 et seq., ECHR 2005-... (extracts); Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44 et seq., 16 June 2005; Novoselov v. Russia, no. 66460/01, § 41 et seq., 2 June 2005; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 39 et seq., 20 January 2005; Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, §§ 97 et seq., ECHR 2002-VI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 69 et seq., ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 35207/03
OSTROVAR v. MOLDOVA
- EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 72277/01
DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 41707/98
KHOKHLICH v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01
ALVER v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07
[ENG]
Thus, the Court finds it necessary to join the Government's objection to the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (compare Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 25, 10 May 2007).Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, 10 May 2007 (IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3, Moscow, 1999- 2001).
- EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 14097/12
VARGA v. HUNGARY and 78 other applications
In the area of complaints about inhuman or degrading conditions of detention, the Court has already observed that two types of relief are possible: an improvement in the material conditions of detention and compensation for the damage or loss sustained on account of such conditions (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007; and Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, § 79, 25 November 2010). - EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 61467/12
REZMIVES c. ROUMANIE et 3 autres affaires
De plus, toute personne victime de conditions de détention portant atteinte à sa dignité doit pouvoir obtenir une réparation pour la violation subie (Ananyev et autres, précité, §§ 97-98 et 210-231 ; et Benediktov c. Russie, no 106/02, § 29, 10 mai 2007).
- EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03
SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
Relevant international documents and reports concerning the conditions in Russian penitentiary establishments can be found in the judgment of 25 October 2005 in the case of Fedotov v. Russia, (no. 5140/02, §§ 54-55), judgment of 10 May 2007 in the case of Benediktov v. Russia, (no. 106/02, § 21) and judgment of 8 November 2005 in the case of Khudoyorov v. Russia (no. 6847/02, §§ 97-98).However the Government did not demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicant by such a measure, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of his detention were apparently of a structural nature and did not only concern his personal situation (see Kalashnikov v. Russia (dec.), no. 47095/99, 18 September 2001, Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006 and Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29-30, 10 May 2007).
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
[ENG]
The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
[ENG]
The Court found that, while the possibility of obtaining compensation was not ruled out, the remedy did not offer reasonable prospects of success, in particular because the award was conditional on the establishment of fault on the part of the authorities (see, for instance, Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, §§ 81-85, 25 November 2010; Shilbergs v. Russia, no. 20075/03, §§ 71-79, 17 December 2009; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 52, 28 May 2009; Aleksandr Makarov, cited above, §§ 77 and 87-89; Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, §§ 29 and 30, 10 May 2007; Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, §§ 109-116, ECHR 2009; and, most recently, Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 4871/03
SKOROBOGATYKH v. RUSSIA
The Court reiterates that irrespective of the reasons for the overcrowding, it is incumbent on the respondent Government to organise their custodial system in such a way as to ensure respect for the dignity of detainees, regardless of financial or logistical difficulties (see Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 63, 1 June 2006, and Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 37, 10 May 2007).As regards the Government's contention that the applicant could have brought his grievances to the attention of the prison's administration or a prosecutor or complain to the court of the alleged failure by the prison administration to comply with applicable laws, the Court reiterates that it has already found a violation of Article 13 in a number of cases against Russia on account of the ineffectiveness of the said remedies (see, for example, Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007).
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03
[ENG]
The Court observes that in a number of cases against Russia it found that the Government had failed to demonstrate what redress could have been afforded to the applicants by a prosecutor or a court, taking into account that the problems arising from the conditions of their detention had apparently been of a structural nature and had not concerned their personal situations alone (see, for example, Benediktov v. Russia (no. 106/02, §§ 29-30, 10 May 2007, Moiseyev v. Russia (dec.), no. 62936/00, 9 December 2004, and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 57, 1 June 2006).The Court has previously established that the continuous nature of detention, even in two different detention facilities with similar conditions, warranted examination of the detention without dividing it into separate periods (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 31, 10 May 2007; Guliyev v. Russia, no. 24650/02, § 33, 19 June 2008; and Sudarkov v. Russia, no. 3130/03, § 40, 10 July 2008).
- EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 30997/02
POLUFAKIN AND CHERNYSHEV v. RUSSIA
The Court further points out that it has already established that no effective domestic remedy existed in the Russian legal system in relation to complaints concerning the general conditions of detention in remand prisons, in particular with regard to the structural problem of overcrowding (see Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007).A distinction must be drawn between the above mentioned cases concerning conditions of detention in remand prisons and the present application as the Court has not yet found that conditions of detention in correctional facilities could disclose a structural problem from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention (see, a contrario, Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007).
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12
Verstoß Maltas gegen Art. 3 EMRK
conditions (see Roman Karasev v. Russia, no. 30251/03, § 79, 25 November 2010, and Benediktov v. Russia, no. 106/02, § 29, 10 May 2007). - EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21503/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 4313/04
GORGUILADZE c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02
PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 23190/17
PETRESCU c. PORTUGAL et 4 autres affaires
- EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01
BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05
MELNITIS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 11436/06
MITYANIN v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 24650/02
GULIYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13
STORY v. MALTA
- EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 5235/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01
GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 14344/13
ALIMOV v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 13054/12
BUJOREAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 21056/11
NORKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 14248/05
TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23226/16
NIKITIN v. ESTONIA and 5 other applications
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02
BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29652/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05
VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02
GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01
VLASOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12
LONIC v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 19936/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 29883/06
[FRE]
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03
ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 33228/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 26746/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16262/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 46423/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.07.2008 - 3130/03
SUDARKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 63955/00
SUKHOVOY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 19866/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 4458/10
MIKALAUSKAS v. MALTA
- EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 591/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.09.2010 - 1033/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 22893/05
RODIC ET AUTRES c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE
- EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 10839/09
ABI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 46793/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 38427/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04
KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 8609/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 29464/03
AREFYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 9870/07
POGHOSSIAN c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 14850/03
MATYUSH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01
BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 53168/12
GHIROGA c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 18785/13
KOUTALIDIS c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 41513/12
TSOKAS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 48562/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 41558/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 918/02
SOLOVYEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 12543/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 35648/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 25153/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17679/03
BUZHINAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 6270/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 6954/02
MALTABAR AND MALTABAR v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 74721/12
SANATKAR c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 35091/12
NISTOR c. ROUMANIE et 1 autre requête
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 62353/09
[FRE]
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16264/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 23185/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38746/03
[FRE]
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14797/02
ALEKSANDR MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00
KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.05.2009 - 5829/04
KHODORKOVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 22107/03
ANTROPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 1603/02
BROVCHENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 44388/17
STEPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 48106/13
GOIA c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 5993/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 5002/05
[FRE]
- EGMR, 24.07.2012 - 18999/04
[FRE]
- EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 10641/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 25432/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 43589/02
SALAKHUTDINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 3267/03
MOSKALYUK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.10.2009 - 921/03
BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 39420/03
BYCHKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 522/04
ALIEV c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 921/03
BORDIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 8552/10
GALOGRE v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 61531/14
AFANASYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 16906/10
[FRE]
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 45196/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 33929/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 10921/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 12008/03
LUTOKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 23204/07
GHAVTADZE c. GEORGIE
- EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 4176/03
DANILIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.08.2010 - 33658/05
KUCHTA AND KUCHTOVA v. SLOVAKIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 18218/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 67086/01
KOROBOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 47024/06
ROD v. CROATIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| OLG Frankfurt, 10.01.2003 - 4 UF 105/02, 4 UF 106/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- openjur.de
- Justiz Hessen
§ 1626a BGB, § 1666 BGB, § 1672 BGB, § 50b FGG
Elterliche Sorge für nichteheliche Kinder: Voraussetzungen und Bedeutung des Kindeswillen für die Übertragung der elterlichen Sorge für einen 16jährigen Jugendlichen auf den nichtehelichen Vater - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)
- rechtsportal.de(Abodienst, kostenloses Probeabo) (Leitsatz)
BGB § 1626a § 1666 Abs. 1 § 1672 Abs. 1; FGG § 50b
Übertragung der elterlichen Sorge für ein nichteheliches Kind auf den Vater - Wolters Kluwer(Abodienst, Leitsatz/Tenor frei) (Leitsatz)
Elterliche Sorge für nichteheliche Kinder: Voraussetzungen und Bedeutung des Kindeswillen für die Übertragung der elterlichen Sorge für einen 16jährigen Jugendlichen auf den nichtehelichen Vater
Verfahrensgang
- AG Alsfeld, 26.09.2002 - 21 F 381/02
- AG Alsfeld, 26.09.2002 - 21 F 401/02
- OLG Frankfurt, 10.01.2003 - 4 UF 105/02, 4 UF 106/02
Papierfundstellen
- FamRZ 2003, 1314
- FamRZ 2004, 132 (Ls.)
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (1)
- BGH, 04.04.2001 - XII ZB 3/00
Verfassungsmäßigkeit von Regelungen des gemeinsamen Sorgerechts bei …
Auszug aus OLG Frankfurt, 10.01.2003 - 4 UF 105/02
Diese gesetzliche Regelung ist verfassungsrechtlich nicht zu beanstanden (vgl. BGH, NJW 2001, 2472).
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06, 61531/14, 37463/04, 33929/03, 15217/07, 14797/02, 46468/06, 205/02, 43174/10, 66252/14, 1750/03, 25462/09, 67253/01, 37810/03, 36932/02, 106/02, 57502/12, 921/03, 12543/09, 66583/11, 17679/03, 68337/01, 39420/03, 32719/09, 20641/04, 4176/03, 4146 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A.B. CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 135 AUTRES AFFAIRES
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A.B. AGAINST RUSSIA AND 135 OTHER CASES
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 1439/06
- EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06, 61531/14, 37463/04, 33929/03, 15217/07, 14797/02, 46468/06, 205/02, 43174/10, 66252/14, 1750/03, 25462/09, 67253/01, 37810/03, 36932/02, 106/02, 57502/12, 921/03, 12543/09, 66583/11, 17679/03, 68337/01, 39420/03, 32719/09, 20641/04, 4176/03, 4146
Wird zitiert von ... (13) Zitiert selbst (143)
- KAG Mainz, 12.01.2012 - M 28/11
"Einkehrtag" als beteiligungspflichtige Veranstaltung
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
28/11/2011.28/11/2011.
28/11/2011.
28/11/2013,.
- KAGH, 27.04.2012 - M 12/11
Änderung der Parkordnung eines Parkhauses; Zustimmung der Mitarbeitervertretung
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
12/11/2007.12/11/2007.
12/11/2015.
- EGMR, 05.07.2018 - 24/11
CENTRO DEMARZIO S.R.L. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
24/11/2016.24/11/2016.
24/11/2016.
24/11/2016.
- KAG Freiburg, 04.04.2008 - 10/07
Unterlassungsanspruch bezüglich der Anwendung einer Dienstvereinbarung über eine …
- EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 11/04
VOTTO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
11/04/2011.11/04/2013.
11/04/2013.
- OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 24.10.2008 - 23/07
Anhörungsrüge wegen des Verstoßes einer Entscheidung gegen den Anspruch auf …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
23/07/2009.23/07/2009.
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
13/12/2016.13/12/2016.
- KAG Mainz, 25.11.2010 - M 29/10
Höhergruppierung
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
29/10/2015.29/10/2015.
- SG Berlin, 14.09.1955 - 15/12
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
15/12/2015.15/12/2015.
- VGH der UEK, 29.03.2005 - 29/01
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2018 - 1439/06
29/01/2009.29/01/2009.
- BPatG, 17.11.2011 - 3 ZA (pat) 54/11
Patentnichtigkeitsklageverfahren - mehrere Gerichtsgebühren bei nachträglicher …
- EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 56027/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05
LIND v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 17694/10
MAIO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 17/02
LIGERES v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 19/05
[FRE]
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 18.02.2005 - 12/02
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 06.11.2012 - 13/11
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10
KORYAK v. RUSSIA
- KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 15/06
- EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 10/10
BRUNNER v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03
GLADKIY v. RUSSIA
- KAG Freiburg, 19.06.2009 - 11/09
Anspruch auf Freistellung und Kostenübernahme für eine beabsichtigte …
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 13591/05
[ENG]
- KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 18/06
- KAG Aachen, 19.06.2006 - 11/06
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 43710/07
FETISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03
SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 17564/06
[ENG]
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 04.04.2003 - 19/02
- EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 41833/04
YEVGENIY ALEKSEYENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78774/13
TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 67413/01
GULTYAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08
IVKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 30983/02
GRISHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 34393/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02
GUBKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.02.2014 - 2689/12
SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 18813/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 28333/13
TSELOVALNIK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02
IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 2974/05
VASYUKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 24202/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 41828/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 15492/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 23691/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 33761/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 26676/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 42526/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.06.2013 - 591/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.03.2016 - 32863/13
LITVINOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07
MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 33099/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 8589/08
M.S. v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 23939/02
SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 7782/04
KOVALEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 13579/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 35297/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14
KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 26436/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 14850/03
MATYUSH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 918/02
SOLOVYEVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 38711/03
GOROSHCHENYA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 30112/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 32917/13
KHALVASH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 34959/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 34044/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 49106/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 54996/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 38758/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 35421/05
MECHENKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 1900/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 19936/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 12987/15
KONDRULIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 16264/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 4532/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21503/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 41550/02
[ENG]
- EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 56097/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 20326/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 33023/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 53120/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 25432/05
[ENG]
- RG, 18.05.1905 - 20/05
Ist fahrlässige Übertretung der Vorschrift des § 368 Nr. 10 St.G.B.'s strafbar?
- EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 58530/08
NOGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 10641/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 66823/12
NIZOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 3933/12
PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 59443/12
REZNIK v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 9807/02
OVCHINNIKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 37858/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 3267/03
MOSKALYUK v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 52431/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 27122/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 8741/15
PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 52873/11
PETROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50149/11
OLEG ZHURAVLEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 4963/06
KURUSHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 12008/03
LUTOKHIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 71578/11
MALYUGIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 28505/09
ISTRATOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 26073/09
KARBYSHEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 54427/08
IZMUTDIN ISAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 33302/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 45196/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.09.2015 - 25604/06
TOMAYLY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 6521/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 41461/10
[ENG]
- KAGH, 07.06.2013 - M 22/12
Zustimmung der MAV beim Einsatz von Dienstleistungskräften (Anästhesieteam) - zum …
- EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 15217/07
ALEKSANDR MAKAROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02
BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 15/02
DURUK ET YÜCEDAG c. TURQUIE
- KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 25/09
- EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02
Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland
- EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01
BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.06.2009 - 36932/02
BAKHMUTSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 66583/11
BUDANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 1750/03
ANDREYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.10.2008 - 68337/01
BUZYCHKIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 37810/03
BAGEL v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 17679/03
BUZHINAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 12543/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.03.2012 - 30268/03
DMITRIY SAZONOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1066/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 4265/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 43174/10
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14
ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14797/02
ALEKSANDR MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 39420/03
BYCHKOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 25462/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 44187/04
[ENG]
- EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 57502/12
BOGOMOLOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 32719/09
CHERNYKH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 66231/14
DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
- EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 33929/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 4176/03
DANILIN v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 61531/14
AFANASYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 37463/04
AKHMETOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08
[ENG]
In cases where the applicants referred to both the aforementioned provisions in respect of allegedly inadequate medical assistance available to them in detention, but where there was no death, the Court examined the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, § 114, 14 October 2010). - EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 56759/08
[FRE]
Υπό αυτÎς τις περιστάσεις, δÏναται να αφήσει την επιλ&omikron;γή τ&omikron;υ µÎτρ&omikron;υ και της εφαρµ&omikron;γής αυτ&omikron;Ï στην διακριτική ευχÎρεια τ&omikron;υ εµπλεκ&omikron;µÎν&omikron;υ Κράτ&omikron;υς (βλ. για παράδειγµα, Aleksanyan c. Russie, αρ. 46468/06, παρ. - EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 769/13
TOCARENCO c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
Dans ces circonstances, elle peut laisser le choix de la mesure et de l'application de celle-ci à la discrétion de l'État concerné (voir, par exemple, Aleksanyan c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 239, 22 décembre 2008 et Fatullayev c. Azerbaijan, no 40984/07, §§ 174-177, 22 avril 2010).
- EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 2447/05
CARA-DAMIANI c. ITALIE
Par ailleurs, s'agissant de fournir les soins médicaux appropriés, il faut avoir égard aux exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement (Alexanian c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 140, 22 décembre 2008). - EGMR, 10.05.2011 - 4512/09
[ENG]
B., in particular, (see A.B. v. Russia, no. 1439/06, 14 October 2010) provided the following account of the conditions of his detention in wing 2/1 of facility IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg:. - EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 29896/13
LAVRENTIADIS c. GRÈCE
Ce niveau devrait être « compatible avec la dignité humaine'de chaque détenu (Papastavrou c. Grèce, no 63054/13, § 88, 16 avril 2015), mais devrait aussi prendre en considération « les exigences pratiques de l'incarcération'(Aleksanyan c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 140, 22 décembre 2008). - EGMR, 09.07.2015 - 20378/13
MARTZAKLIS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
Tout en étant consciente des exigences pratiques de la détention, la Cour se reconnait suffisamment de flexibilité pour décider, au cas par cas, si les carences dans les soins médicaux ont été compatibles avec la dignité humaine du détenu (Aleksanyan c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 140, 22 décembre 2008). - EGMR, 16.02.2023 - 7446/21
PERSTNER c. LUXEMBOURG
« (...) La Cour rappelle à cet égard que les autorités ne peuvent justifier le maintien en détention par une simple référence à de tels risques ; elles doivent se référer à des faits précis concernant le comportement du requérant, sa situation personnelle, etc. (...)'(Alexanian c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 182, 22 décembre 2008). - EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 63054/13
PAPASTAVROU c. GRÈCE
Τ&omikron; επίπεδ&omikron; αυτό πρÎπει «να σÎβεται την ανθρώπινη αξι&omikron;πρÎπεια" κάθε κρατ&omikron;υµÎν&omikron;υ, αλλά πρÎπει επίσης να λαµβάνει υπόψη «τις πρακτικÎς απαιτήσεις της φυλάκισης" (Aleksanyan κατά Ρωσσίας, αρ. 46468/06, § 140, 22 Δεκεµβρί&omikron;υ 2008). - EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 66640/10
[FRE]
Par ailleurs, s'agissant de fournir les soins médicaux appropriés, il faut avoir égard aux exigences pratiques de l'emprisonnement (Alexanian c. Russie, no 46468/06, § 140, 22 décembre 2008). - EGMR, 02.10.2014 - 36836/09
DIMITRAS ET GILBERT c. GRECE
- EGMR, 09.09.2014 - 11406/11
NEAGU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 22395/10
ASIMAKOPOULOS c. GRÈCE
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".