Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R. v. FINLAND

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1,, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 (failure to facilitate family reunification) No violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings) Not necessary to examine remaining aspects under Art. 6-1 8 and 13 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 34141/96
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 34141/96

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 34141/96

  The Court reiterates the guiding principle whereby a care order should be regarded as a temporary measure, to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permit, and that any measures implementing temporary care should be consistent with the ultimate aim of reuniting the natural parent and the child (see, in particular, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, pp.
• RG, 30.05.1908 - I 30/08

  Förmlichkeiten des Protestes, durch den die Präsentation eines eigenen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 34141/96

  30/08/2006.
• EGMR, 14.01.2003 - 27751/95

  K.A. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 34141/96

  After a considerable period of time has passed since the child was originally taken into public care, the interest of a child not to have his or her de facto family situation changed again may override the interests of the parents to have their family reunited (see K.A. v. Finland, no. 27751/95, § 138, 14 January 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 21574/16

  ROENGKASETTAKORN ERIKSSON v. SWEDEN

  In its judgment, the Court of Appeal noted at the outset that the relevant provisions in the Parental Act (see paragraph 53 below) had to be applied in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and referred in particular to the cases of Görgülü v. Germany (no. 74969/01, 26 February 2004), R. v. Finland (no. 34141/96, 30 May 2006) and Levin v. Sweden (no. 35141/06, 15 March 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  M.D. AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  In particular the Court has applied the different safeguards provided by Article 6 in relation to proceedings regarding care orders and their equivalent numerous times (see for example, P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 100, ECHR 2002-VI, in respect of proceedings regarding a care order and a freeing for adoption order, particularly in relation to fair and effective access to a court; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, §§ 86-91, regarding the fairness of proceedings requesting the termination of a taking into public care; and R. v. Finland, no. 34141/96, §§ 117-120, 30 May 2006, regarding the length of proceedings for the termination of public care).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 35141/06

  [ENG]

  The first pertains to the speed with and extent to which parental access to the children was reduced which, for me, raises a serious question as to proportionality; the second relates to the failure on the part of the authorities to discharge their positive duty to take measures to facilitate family reunification (see X v. Croatia, no. 11223/04, 17 July 2008; K.A. v. Finland, no. 27751/95, 14 January 2003; and R. v. Finland, no. 34141/96, § 89, 30 May 2006).
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  H.K. v. FINLAND

  The relevant legislation is outlined in the Court's judgments in K. and T. v. Finland [GC] (no. 25702/94, §§ 94-136, ECHR 2001-VII) and R. v. Finland (no. 34141/96, 30 May 2006).