Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VLADIMIR USHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  USHAKOV v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  ADZIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 15122/17

  As I already mentioned in my opinion annexed to the judgment in the case of Adžić v. Croatia (no. 22643/14, 12 March 2015), the Hague Convention has systemic deficiencies.
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 15122/17

  "Respect" for family life implies an obligation for a State to act in a manner calculated to allow these ties to develop normally (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 221, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 15122/17

  The exception provided for in Article 13 (b) concerns only situations which go beyond what a child might reasonably be expected to bear (see see X v. Latvia, cited above, § 116; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, §§ 69 and 73, 6 December 2007; and K.J. v. Poland, cited above, §§ 64 and 67).

• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01

  MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 15122/17

  The Court further observes that the City Court's conclusion to the effect that the child's removal to and retention in Russia had not been wrongful in the absence of a final decision by the Finnish courts determining V.'s residence as being with the applicant in Finland contradicts the obvious meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention which transpires from the text, the Explanatory Report and the recognised common practice (see paragraph 89 above, and Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 81, 5 April 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  K.J. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 15122/17

  That action nevertheless placed the respondent State under positive obligations to secure for the applicant his right to respect for his family life, which included taking measures under the Hague Convention with a view to ensuring his prompt reunification with his child (see R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, § 58, 21 July 2015, and K.J. v. Poland, no. 30813/14, § 53, 1 March 2016).
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 51323/14

  TÓTH v. HUNGARY and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 15122/17

  The Court notes that a parent and child's mutual enjoyment of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, most recently, Edina Tóth v. Hungary, no. 51323/14, § 49, 30 January 2018).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.09.2025 - 50769/20

  KLYMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019;.

  Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019;.

• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 36048/17

  THOMPSON v. RUSSIA

  That action nevertheless placed the respondent State under positive obligations to secure for the applicants their right to respect for their family life, which included taking measures under the Hague Convention with a view to ensuring their prompt reunification (see Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 86, 18 June 2019, with further references).

  I regret that - as in other previous similar "abduction" cases - I cannot agree with the majority in the present case (see my recent dissenting opinion in Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, 18 June 2019, with further references).

• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 17665/17

  Y.S. AND O.S. v. RUSSIA

  However, as outlined in the general principles above (see paragraph 81 above), the Court is competent to ascertain whether the Russian courts, in applying and interpreting the provisions of that Convention, secured the guarantees set forth in Article 8 of the Convention, particularly taking into account the child's best interests (see, most recently, Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 96, 18 June 2019).

• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 35845/24

  SPYRIDONIDIS v. ARMENIA

  Their reasoning cannot be regarded as automatic or stereotyped; on the contrary, it was sufficiently detailed and consistent with the exceptions provided for in the Hague Convention and the principles established in the Court's case-law (see Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 76-78, 1 July 2014, and Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 82, 18 June 2019).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 42705/11

  ESTEMIROVA v. RUSSIA

  It has already granted claims formulated in the same manner in many cases (see D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 60, ECHR 2001-III; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 111, 10 March 2009; Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 109, 18 June 2019; and Gubasheva and Ferzauli v. Russia, no. 38433/17, § 64, 5 May 2020).
• EGMR, 03.12.2024 - 20503/20

  GIANNAKOPOULOS v. GREECE

  Rn. 60 Lastly, the Court must determine whether the interference in question was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of the relevant international instruments, and whether, when the courts were striking a balance between the competing interests at stake, appropriate weight was given to the child's best interests, within the margin of appreciation afforded to a State in such matters (see paragraph 59 above and Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 88, 18 June 2019).
• EGMR, 23.11.2021 - 24757/18

  TAPAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It has already granted claims formulated in the same manner in many cases (see D.N. v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27154/95, § 60, ECHR 2001-III; Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, § 111, 10 March 2009; Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 109, 18 June 2019; and Gubasheva and Ferzauli, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 9256/19

  VOICA v. ROMANIA

  The Court notes that the County Court acted in what it considered to be the pursuit of the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of the children (see, mutatis mutandis, Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 87, 18 June 2019, and Blaga, cited above, § 74), an aim that is consistent with the protection of the rights and freedoms of others as provided for by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 07.01.2025 - 18737/18

  F.D. AND H.C. v. PORTUGAL

  The same philosophy is inherent in the Hague Convention (see Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 79, 18 June 2019).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 10395/19

  MICHNEA v. ROMANIA

  The relevant principles regarding the interference with the right to respect for family life, as well as the State's positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention in cases concerning the return of a child under the Hague Convention, are summarised in X v. Latvia ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 92-108, ECHR 2013) and have been recently reiterated in Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia (no. 15122/17, §§ 76-83, 18 June 2019).
• EGMR, 25.11.2025 - 103/22

  MAKRIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 18.09.2025 - 14187/21

  DYMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 51056/21

  OSSO v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 21347/21

  DOMITREK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2026 - 34324/24

  M.A. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.10.2024 - 30520/22

  A.D. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.05.2022 - 30560/19

  P.D. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2026 - 24011/23

  BADEA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.10.2025 - 55905/18

  KOKKINOGENNIS c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 28.03.2024 - 19664/20

  VERHOEVEN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 34176/18

  DUBINSKIY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 61984/17

  MAKHMUDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 57202/21

  KUKAVICA v. BULGARIA