Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BABIARZ v. POLAND
Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 12 - Right to marry ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BABIARZ v. POLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation ...
- doev.de
Babiarz - Kein Recht auf Scheidung
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (4)
- faz.net (Pressemeldung, 10.01.2017)
Ein Recht auf Scheidung? Pole scheitert mit Scheidungswunsch
- lto.de (Kurzinformation)
Kein Recht auf Scheidung: Pole muss mit ungeliebter Frau verheiratet bleiben
- anwalt.de (Kurzinformation)
Kein Menschenrecht auf Ehescheidung und neue Heirat
- jurios.de (Kurzinformation)
Zwangsehe für polnischen Mann
Besprechungen u.ä.
- verlag-rolf-schmidt.de (Fallbesprechung - aus Ausbildungssicht)
Staatsrecht/Familienrecht: EGMR: Kein Recht auf Scheidung
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BABIARZ v. POLAND
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (25)
- EGMR, 18.12.1987 - 11329/85
F. v. SWITZERLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
of the Contracting States but the limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right to marry in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).It has also held that, if national legislation allows divorce, which is not a requirement of the Convention, Article 12 secures for divorced persons the right to remarry (see F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 38, Series A no. 128).
The exercise of the right to marry is subject to the laws of the Contracting States, but any limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right to marry in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).
The Court itself has already admitted that "Children born out of wedlock may nonetheless suffer on account of certain prejudices and thus be socially handicapped." (F. v. Switzerland, judgment of 18 December 1987, Series A no. 128, § 36).
- EGMR, 17.10.1986 - 9532/81
REES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
of the Contracting States but the limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right to marry in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).The exercise of the right to marry is subject to the laws of the Contracting States, but any limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right to marry in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).
Rees v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 17 October 1986, Series A no. 106, § 50; and F., cited above, § 32.29.
- EGMR, 13.09.2005 - 36536/02
B. AND L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
of the Contracting States but the limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right to marry in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).The exercise of the right to marry is subject to the laws of the Contracting States, but any limitations thereby introduced must not restrict or reduce the right to marry in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right to marry is impaired (see Rees v. the United Kingdom, 17 October 1986, § 50, Series A no. 106; F. v. Switzerland, 18 December 1987, § 32, Series A no. 128; and B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, § 34, 13 September 2005).
47. The need to protect the essence of the right to marry was the major concern in the judgment of B. and L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 36536/02, 13 September 2005, concerning the prohibition on marriage between a fatherinlaw and his daughterinlaw.
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 15001/04
IVANOV ET PETROVA c. BULGARIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
The Court's assessment 46. The Court observes that the applicant's complaint about the alleged breach of his rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 12 of the Convention is based on the same fact, namely the courts' refusal to grant him a divorce (see Ivanov and Petrova v. Bulgaria, no. 15001/04, §§ 55 et seq., 14 June 2011).The caselaw of the Court, as understood in the judgment, indicates that the Convention cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing a possibility, under domestic law, of obtaining a divorce (let alone a favourable outcome in such proceedings) under Article 12. However, this is not an absolute position, and yet this judgment refuses to engage in a full analysis of this point (see Ivanov and Petrova v. Bulgaria, no. 15001/04, 14 June 2011).
40. Ivanov and Petrova v. Bulgaria, no. 15001/04, § 61, 14 June 2011.
- EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
Nevertheless, the Court has reiterated on many occasions that the Convention is a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of presentday conditions (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 41, Series A no. 31, and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).It went on to say that "in addition to this primarily negative undertaking [protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities], there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private or family life" (ibid., § 33, citing the Marckx v. Belgium judgment of 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31).
Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 14, para.
- EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
They counteracted the menace of arbitrary and unilateral terminations of marriages in a society adhering to the principle of monogamy (see Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 52, Series A no. 112).Yet in so finding, the judgment relies on Johnston and Others v. Ireland (18 December 1986, Series A no. 112) and its progeny, and on the broad margin of appreciation that States enjoy in this respect.
Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112.2.
- EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90
KEEGAN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
What kind of family should be protected here? The fictional marriage after separation for eleven years and recognised by the domestic courts as "a complete and irretrievable marriage breakdown" (see paragraph 16)? Or the other de facto family which is and has been together for eleven years, which seeks recognition and involves the interests of a child of similar age? The Convention cannot be interpreted as upholding de jure fictions to the detriment of a de facto situation that the Convention itself allows and the caselaw protects (see Marckx, cited above, § 31; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; and Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-C).21; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; L., cited above, § 35; Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII; Yousef v. the Netherlands, no. 33711/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Znamenskaya v. Russia, no. 77785/01, § 26, 2 June 2005.10.
- EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91
KROON AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
What kind of family should be protected here? The fictional marriage after separation for eleven years and recognised by the domestic courts as "a complete and irretrievable marriage breakdown" (see paragraph 16)? Or the other de facto family which is and has been together for eleven years, which seeks recognition and involves the interests of a child of similar age? The Convention cannot be interpreted as upholding de jure fictions to the detriment of a de facto situation that the Convention itself allows and the caselaw protects (see Marckx, cited above, § 31; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; and Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-C).Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-C; L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, § 36, ECHR 2004 IV; and Chbihi Loududi and Others v. Belgium, no. 52265/10, § 78, 16 December 2014.9.
- EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73
AIREY v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 1955/10
Nevertheless, the Court has reiterated on many occasions that the Convention is a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of presentday conditions (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 41, Series A no. 31, and Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 26, Series A no. 32).Already prior to Johnston, in Airey v. Ireland (9 October 1979, §§ 31-33, Series A no. 32), it found that in order to protect family life the State must sometimes allow a couple relief from the duty to live together.
- EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 38972/06
GIUSTO, BORNACIN AND V. v. ITALY
- EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 39438/13
NAZARENKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 49151/07
Muñoz Diaz ./. Spanien
- EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08
CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 52265/10
CHBIHI LOUDOUDI ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
- EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84
BERREHAB v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94
Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 13.08.1981 - 7601/76
YOUNG, JAMES ET WEBSTER c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 50490/99
BOSO contre l'ITALIE
- EGMR, 24.04.1996 - 22070/93
BOUGHANEMI v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 27.08.2015 - 46470/11
PARRILLO v. ITALY
- EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97
Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren
- EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 14414/03
JUCIUS AND JUCIUVIENE v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99
MIKULIC v. CROATIA