Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SBÂRNEA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  In both contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).
• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures (see, inter alia, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).
• KAG Mainz, 12.01.2012 - M 28/11

  "Einkehrtag" als beteiligungspflichtige Veranstaltung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  28/11/2011.
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01

  MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  The Court notes that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005).
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  IGLESIAS GIL ET A.U.I. c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, cited above, § 94; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 37284/02

  LAFARGUE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  The relevant provisions of the Code of Family and of the Code of Civil Proceedings are stated in the Court's judgment in the case of Lafargue v. Romania, (no. 37284/02, §§ 65 and 68-70, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 16.12.2008 - 11375/02

  KALETA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  In examining whether the Romanian authorities took all the necessary steps to facilitate the enforcement of the contact arrangements, the Court must strike a balance between the various interests involved, namely the interest's of the applicant's daughter and her mother, those of the applicant himself and the general interest in ensuring respect for the rule of law (see Kaleta v. Poland, no. 11375/02, § 53, 16 December 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VG Köln, 01.12.2015 - 7 K 14/15

  Kein Zugang zu tödlicher Dosis

  Rn. 47 vgl. VG Köln, Urteile vom 21.02.2006 - 7 K 2040/06 - und vom 13.05.2014 - 7 K 254/13 - , bestätigt durch OVG NRW, Urteil vom 19.08.2015 - 13 A 1299/14 - juris, Rn. 54 - 79, nicht rechtskräftig.
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07

  [ENG]

  In this respect, the Court does not discern any arbitrariness in the prosecutors" and the courts" decisions not to pursue I.R. criminally, while their reasoning pinpointing to the need of a more intense cooperation between both parents does not appear as devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, Sbârnea v. Romania, no. 2040/06, § 119, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 17.04.2012 - 805/09

  PASCAL v. ROMANIA

  Moreover, their reasoning, stressing that O.M.M."s behaviour concerned the best interest of the child, does not appear devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, Sbârnea v. Romania, no. 2040/06, § 119, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 47873/13

  DARICIUC v. ROMANIA

  Moreover, their reasoning, stressing that the applicant's son-in-law had only observed the child's wishes, does not appear devoid of merit (see, mutatis mutandis, Sbârnea v. Romania, no. 2040/06, § 119, 21 June 2011).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 53241/09

  MEREUTA v. ROMANIA

  The Court is aware of how delicate situations such as that at issue in the present case may be, and acknowledges that the matter may have been complicated in the present case by the difficult relations between the applicant and D.O. However, it can but note that the applicant's efforts in the case appear to have been focused more on obtaining recognition of the alleged criminal behaviour of the mother than on maintaining meaningful contact with his son (see Sbârnea v. Romania, no. 2040/06, § 137, 21 June 2011).