Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M. AND S. v. ITALY AND UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.1999 - 30544/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2584/11

  The Court reiterates that, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2584/11

  Such a step must be supported by sufficiently sound and weighty considerations in the interests of the child (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 72, Series A no. 130).
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2584/11

  Furthermore, the natural family relationship is not terminated by reason of the fact that the child has been taken into public care (see Eriksson v. Sweden, 22 June 1989, § 58, Series A no. 156).
• EGMR, 21.01.2010 - 42402/05

  Rechtssache W. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2584/11

  42402/05 and 42423/05, § 61, 21 January 2010).
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 23087/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2584/11

  Although proceedings have been going on for more than six years, it is evident from the facts of the case that there have not been any significant periods of inactivity, or adjournments for reasons related to internal organisation (see, a contrario, Veljkov v. Serbia, no. 23087/07, § 88, 19 April 2011 and Wildgruber v. Germany, nos.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  M.D. AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The Court has repeatedly dealt with cases concerning access, custody and care orders, and while it often considers such cases as falling under Article 8 of the Convention, including its "procedural" aspect (see, for example, H.K. v. Finland, no. 36065/97, 26 September 2006, Scozzari and Giunta, cited above; and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 151, 27 September 2011), it does not preclude that such cases be examined also under Article 6 (see, for example, B. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121, in respect of access rights; H. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120, in respect of access rights and adoption; and M. and S. v Italy and the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 2584/11, 13 March 2012, in respect of a taking into public care order).