Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Å.N. v. NORWAY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ?.N. v. NORWAY

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

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 64639/16

  M.L. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 12825/20

  The Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it has found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022, where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation; see also Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; and M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020, where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred).
• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 39710/15

  PEDERSEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 12825/20

  The Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it has found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022, where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation; see also Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; and M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020, where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 64808/16

  K.O. AND v.M. v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 12825/20

  The Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it has found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022, where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation; see also Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; and M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020, where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred).

• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 14652/16

  HERNEHULT v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 12825/20

  The Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it has found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022, where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation; see also Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; and M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020, where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 45889/18

  A.L. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 12825/20

  The Court bears in mind that it has recently given judgments in several cases involving the respondent State in which it has found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention relating to the justifications provided by the domestic authorities for the establishment of particularly restrictive contact regimes (see K.O. and V.M. v. Norway, no. 64808/16, §§ 67-71, 19 November 2019, and A.L. and Others v. Norway, no. 45889/18, §§ 47-51, 20 January 2022, where shortcomings in relation to decisions on contact rights in themselves led to the finding of a violation; see also Strand Lobben and Others, cited above, §§ 221 and 225; Pedersen and Others v. Norway, no. 39710/15, §§ 67-69, 10 March 2020; Hernehult v. Norway, no. 14652/16, §§ 73-74, 10 March 2020; and M.L. v. Norway, no. 64639/16, §§ 92-94, 22 December 2020, where similar shortcomings formed important parts of the context in which violations had occurred).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 53471/17

  E.M. AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 12825/20

  In the circumstances of the instant case, the Court considers it relevant that, under domestic law, biological parents may apply to have the contact rights decided anew when a certain period of time has passed or there is information about significant changes in the situation relevant to the issue of contact rights (see, mutatis mutandis, E.M. and Others v. Norway, no. 53471/17, § 59, 20 January 2022).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.01.2025 - 63625/19

  MON c. FRANCE

  Concernant les principes généraux applicables, il est en outre renvoyé aux développements de l'arrêt Strand Lobben et autres c. Norvège ([GC], no 37283/13, §§ 202-213, 10 septembre 2019, et pour l'application de ces principes dans des affaires similaires au regard du maintien des liens parents-enfants, voir les décisions de comité du 11 juillet 2023, A.G. c. Norvège, no 14301/19, A.H. c. Norvège, no 39771/19, A.N. c. Norvège, no 12825/20, F.K. c. Norvège, no 51860/19, H.L. c. Norvège, no 59747/19, I.M. c. Norvège, no 16998/20, J.B. et E.M. c. Norvège, no 277/20, M.A. et autres c. Norvège, no 41172/20, R.A. c. Norvège, no 44598/19, R.I. c. Norvège, no 7692/20, R.K. et autres c. Norvège, no 45413/20, T.H. c. Norvège, no 42796/20, et comparer les arrêts de comité du 12 septembre 2023, D.R. et autres c. Norvège, no 63307/17 et 38105/19, K.F. et autres c. Norvège, no 39769/17 et 5 autres, et S.S. et J.H. c. Norvège, no 15784/19).