Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M. AND C. v. ROMANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+6, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 8 No violation of Art. 14+6 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M. AND C. v. ROMANIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+6;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M. and C. v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04
• EGMR, 20.11.2013 - 29032/04

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

  RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  In this context, the Court recalls that it has already held that family law matters, such as an action seeking the limitation of contact rights, fall within the ambit of Article 6 (see, mutatis mutandis, Rasmussen v. Denmark, 28 November 1984, § 32, Series A no. 87).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to that extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the substantive provisions (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94, and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  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, 16.12.2003 - 64927/01

  PALAU-MARTINEZ v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  At the same time, the Court notes that Ms M."s request to have D.C."s contact rights limited was not assessed in abstracto (see, by converse implication, Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 64927/01, § 42-43, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 22.06.1989 - 11373/85

  ERIKSSON c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  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, 26.02.2002 - 36515/97

  FRETTE v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  Moreover, the Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify different treatment (see, for example, Gaygusuz v. Austria, 16 September 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-IV, and Fretté v. France, no. 36515/97, § 34, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 18.07.1994 - 13580/88

  KARLHEINZ SCHMIDT v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions - and to that extent it is autonomous - there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the substantive provisions (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94, and Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 18 July 1994, § 22, Series A no. 291-B).
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  HOFFMANN c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 29032/04

  In such circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that there existed a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim pursued (see, by contrast, Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 36, Series A no. 255-C, and Palau-Martinez, cited above, §§ 42-43).