Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  X AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-b) No significant disadvantage;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  X AND E v. IRELAND and 1 other application

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 08.03.2011 - C-34/09

  Die Unionsbürgerschaft gebietet, dass ein Mitgliedstaat es Staatsangehörigen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  In the proceedings brought by X, the argument was made that she had a right on the basis of the Zambrano case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 8 March 2011, Ruiz Zambrano, C-34/09, EU:C:2011:124) to receive child benefit as from the date of E's birth.

  EU:C:2011:124), the CJEU held that Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which concerns citizenship, is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from refusing a third country national upon whom his minor children, who are European Union citizens, are dependent, a right of residence in the Member State of residence and nationality of those children, and from refusing to grant a work permit to that third country national, in so far as such decisions deprive those children of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights attaching to the status of European Union citizen.

• EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01

  STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  65731/01 and 65900/01, § 55, ECHR 2005-X).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 300/11

  C.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  It recalls that this would apply where a case raises questions of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention, for instance whether there is a need to clarify the States' obligation under the Convention or to induce the respondent State to resolve a structural deficiency (see C.P. v. the United Kingdom, (dec.) no. 300/11, § 49, 6 September 2016).

• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  P.C. v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  The parties made their submissions on the basis that Article 14 was applicable, read in conjunction with both Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. However, the issue of the applicability of a Convention provision is one that goes to the jurisdiction of the Court ratione materiae and should be addressed at the admissibility stage unless there is a particular reason to join it to the merits (see P.C. v. Ireland, no. 26922/19, § 52, 1 September 2022).
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 4723/13

  BERISHA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  While no doubt a very welcome contribution towards the costs of child-raising, the Court cannot conclude that child benefit, given the assessment by the Supreme Court of its statutory basis, nature and purpose, represented for the applicants one of the modalities of exercising the right to respect for family life as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (compare with the Court's application of the Beeler criteria to a different type of social security benefit in Berisha v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 4723/13, §§ 40-45, 24 January 2023).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 39325/20

  ? EKS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 15, on 1 August 2021, the latter criterion is no longer required, and the Court may declare an application inadmissible on the ground of non-significant disadvantage, even if it has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal (see Šeks v. Croatia, no. 39325/20, § 47, 3 February 2022 and the further references cited therein).
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 1882/18

  NASH v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2023 - 23851/20

  The Court observes that it is the date of delivery of the Supreme Court's judgment that marks the start of the time-limit for filing an application under the Convention (see in this respect Nash v. Ireland (dec.), [CTE], no. 1882/18, 17 March 2020, § 73).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 53600/20

  Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz u.a. ./. Schweiz - Staatliche Maßnahmen gegen …

  23851/20 and 24360/20, § 58, 22 June 2023).
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 40519/15

  TONCHEV v. BULGARIA

  However, even if it is found that the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the matter complained of, the complaint may nonetheless not be declared inadmissible on this ground if respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, requires an examination on the merits (see, as a recent authority, X and Others v. Ireland, nos. 23851/20 and 24360/20, § 63, 22 June 2023).
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 54708/20

  IVANYUSHCHENKO c. SUISSE

  Rn. 45 La même approche a été suivie dans des arrêts ultérieurs (voir, par exemple, X et autres c. Irlande, nos 23851/20 et 24360/20, § 58, 22 juin 2023, Koilova et Babulkova c. Bulgarie, no 40209/20, § 25, 5 septembre 2023, et Validity Foundation on behalf of T.J. c. Hongrie, no 31970/20, § 57, 10 octobre 2024).

• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 25063/20

  FANESI v. ITALY

  Rn. 115 La Cour rappelle avoir déjà clarifié dans sa jurisprudence la question de la prolongation du délai d'introduction des requêtes individuelles dans le contexte de la situation exceptionnelle liée à la pandémie de Covid-19 (Saakashvili c. Géorgie (déc.), nos 6232/20 et 22394/20, §§ 57-58, 1er mars 2022, Makarashvili et autres c. Géorgie, nos 23158/20 et 2 autres, §§ 47-48, 1er septembre 2022, Kitanovska et Barbulovski c. Macédoine du Nord, no 53030/19, § 40, 9 mai 2023, et X et autres c. Irlande, nos 23851/20 et 24360/20, § 58, 22 juin 2023).
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 47506/20

  MASSE c. FRANCE

  Rn. 27 La même approche a été suivie dans des arrêts ultérieurs (voir, par exemple, X et autres c. Irlande, nos 23851/20 et 24360/20, § 58, 22 juin 2023, Koilova et Babulkova c. Bulgarie, no 40209/20, § 25, 5 septembre 2023, et Validity Foundation on behalf of T.J. c. Hongrie, no 31970/20, § 57, 10 octobre 2024).
• EGMR, 28.04.2026 - 21715/22

  MOLNÁR-FULMER AND PINCEHELYI v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 12 The relevant principles as regards the criterion of no significant disadvantage, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention, have been recently summarised, inter alia, in X and Others v. Ireland (nos. 23851/20 and 24360/20, §§ 63-65, 22 June 2023).
• EGMR, 26.08.2025 - 46913/20

  POP-MANTA c. ROUMANIE et 1 autre affaire

  Étant donné que la requête a été introduite le 19 novembre 2020, elle doit donc être déclarée recevable (voir aussi, entre autres, X et autres c. Irlande, nos 23851/20 et 24360/20, § 58, 22 juin 2023, Koilova et Babulkova c. Bulgarie, no 40209/20, § 25, 5 septembre 2023, et Validity Foundation on behalf of T.J. c. Hongrie, no 31970/20, § 57, 10 octobre 2024 et a contrario, pour une situation où le délai de six mois ne commençait à courir, ni n'arrivait à son échéance pendant la période annoncée dans les décisions du président de la Cour (paragraphe 21 ci-dessus), voir la décision Masse, précitée, §§ 28-32).
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 22895/23

  KUZMANOV v. BULGARIA

  Rn. 21 The Court considers that - while it has not been demonstrated that the aims of the benefit were those claimed by the Government - it cannot be said that, beyond having some effect on family life (albeit strictly circumscribed in time and significance), the benefit's intended purpose is to "promote family life" (contrast Beeler, cited above, § 77, where the benefit concerned a "survivor's pension" that enabled a surviving spouse to look after his or her children full time over a lengthy period; also compare X and Others v. Ireland, nos. 23851/20 and 24360/20, § 74, 22 June 2023, where what was at stake was a temporary non-payment of child benefit).
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 4545/21

  PE? IC v. SERBIA

  However, even if it is found that the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage as a result of the matter complained of, the complaint may nonetheless not be declared inadmissible on this ground if respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, requires an examination on the merits (see, as a recent authority, X and others v. Ireland, nos. 23851/20 and 24360/20, § 63, 22 June 2023).
• EGMR, 02.09.2025 - 27757/20

  ALTAN c. TURQUIE

  La même approche a été suivie dans des arrêts ultérieurs (voir, par exemple, X et autres c. Irlande, nos 23851/20 et 24360/20, § 58, 22 juin 2023, Koilova et Babulkova c. Bulgarie, no 40209/20, § 25, 5 septembre 2023, et Validity Foundation on behalf of T.J. c. Hongrie, no 31970/20, § 57, 10 octobre 2024).
• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 48150/18

  VASILEV v. SERBIA
• EGMR - 23661/23 (anhängig)

  KÁRPÁTI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 11.04.2024 - 45322/21

  A AND B v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 31656/22

  ODU v. IRELAND