Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.K. AND L. v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  However, all issues relevant for his right to respect for his private and family life which occurred in the proceedings concerning the severing of his ties with his biological mother before his adoption, should be examined by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII, § 138; Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, § 32, 27 April 2010; Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 114, 30 November 2010; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 146, 27 September 2011; and M.D. and Others v. Malta, no. 64791/10, § 27, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 11057/02

  Entziehung der elterlichen Sorge

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  Domestic measures hindering such enjoyment amount to an interference with the right protected by Article 8 (see Johansen, cited above, § 52; Haase v. Germany, no. 11057/02, § 82, ECHR 2004-III (extracts); and X v. Croatia, no. 11223/04, § 45, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  Furthermore, the natural family relationship is not terminated by reason of the fact that the child is taken into public care (see Johansen v. Norway, 7 August 1996, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, and Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 59, Series A no. 130).

 
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00

  TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  Z. v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  However, all issues relevant for his right to respect for his private and family life which occurred in the proceedings concerning the severing of his ties with his biological mother before his adoption, should be examined by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII, § 138; Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, § 32, 27 April 2010; Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 114, 30 November 2010; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 146, 27 September 2011; and M.D. and Others v. Malta, no. 64791/10, § 27, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  DIAMANTE AND PELLICCIONI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  However, all issues relevant for his right to respect for his private and family life which occurred in the proceedings concerning the severing of his ties with his biological mother before his adoption, should be examined by the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000-VIII, § 138; Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, § 32, 27 April 2010; Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 114, 30 November 2010; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 146, 27 September 2011; and M.D. and Others v. Malta, no. 64791/10, § 27, 17 July 2012).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25088/94

  CHASSAGNOU ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  Where a substantive Article of the Convention or its Protocols has been relied on both on its own and in conjunction with Article 14 and a separate breach has been found of the substantive Article, the Court may not always consider it necessary to examine the case under Article 14 as well, though the position is otherwise if a clear inequality of treatment in the enjoyment of the right in question is a fundamental aspect of the case (see Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1981, § 67, Series A no. 45; Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, § 89, ECHR 1999-III; and Timishev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 and, while those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see, mutatis mutandis, Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  The Court has already held that family ties exist between a child and its biological parent with whom the child has never lived (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 45, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

• EGMR, 05.06.2015 - 46043/14

  Schutzpflichten gegenüber dem Leben eines Patienten mit apallischem Syndrom bei …

  39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138"139, ECHR 2000"VIII; ?neersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, § 61, 12 July 2011; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 146-47, 27 September 2011; A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 48-50, 8 January 2013; and Raw and Others v. France, no. 10131/11, §§ 51-52, 7 March 2013).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 16899/13

  KOCHEROV AND SERGEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  In view of the Court's analysis under that Article and the violation found, the Court does not consider it necessary to determine whether the domestic courts" decisions thereby discriminated against the first applicant in breach of Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention (see, for a similar conclusion, Schneider v. Germany, no. 17080/07, § 108, 15 September 2011, or A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 94, 8 January 2013).

  55762/00 and 55974/00, § 53, ECHR 2005-XII; and A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 92, 8 January 2013).

• EGMR, 08.03.2022 - 43229/18

  Y.Y. AND Y.Y. v. RUSSIA

  For instance, an aunt with no parental authority over the children concerned (see N.Ts. and Others v. Georgia, no. 71776/12, §§ 52-59, 2 February 2016); a biological mother, following the adoption of the child (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 46-50, 8 January 2013); mothers deprived of parental authority by the State admitted as applicants on behalf of their children, who had been placed in a State institution (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 146, 27 September 2011).

  (A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013).

 
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 37283/13

  STRAND LOBBEN ET AUTRES c. NORVÈGE

  It has been acknowledged in the case-law that the position of children under Article 34 of the Convention calls for careful consideration, since children must generally rely on other individuals to present their claims and represent their interests, and may not be of an age or capacity to authorise any steps to be taken on their behalf in any real sense (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 47, 8 January 2013, and P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56547/00, 11 November 2001).
• EGMR, 02.03.2023 - 52132/19

  CROATIAN RADIO-TELEVISION v. CROATIA

  He relied on the Court's judgments in the cases of A.K. and L. v. Croatia (no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013) and Norris v. Ireland (26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 and, while those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 46, 8 January 2013, and Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, § 31, Series A no. 142).

• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 40792/10

  FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Reposant sur la « formule Câmpeanu ", la conclusion de la majorité (paragraphe 230 de l'arrêt) laisse entendre que le grief tiré d'une inégalité de traitement ne constitue pas un « aspect fondamental du litige'(Dudgeon c. Royaume-Uni, 22 octobre 1981, § 67, série A no 45, Chassagnou et autres c. France [GC], nos 25088/94 et 2 autres, § 89, CEDH 1999-III, Timichev c. Russie, nos 55762/00 et 55974/00, § 53, CEDH 2005-XII, et A.K. et L. c. Croatie, no 37956/11, § 92, 8 janvier 2013).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 17791/22

  A ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  La Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de dire que la situation des enfants au regard de l'article 34 devait faire l'objet d'un examen attentif parce que ceux-ci dépendent généralement d'autres personnes pour soumettre leurs griefs et représenter leurs intérêts et qu'ils n'ont pas nécessairement l'âge ou la capacité requis pour autoriser que des démarches soient concrètement engagées en leur nom (N.Ts. et autres c. Géorgie, no 71776/12, § 54, 2 février 2016, et A.K. et L. c. Croatie, no 37956/11, § 47, 8 janvier 2013).
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  MAMCHUR c. UKRAINE

  In the circumstances of the present case and having regard to its findings under Article 8 (see paragraphs 84, 87, 112 and 113 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the applicant's complaints under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 (see A.K. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 93-94, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 10.10.2023 - 37031/21

  I.V. v. ESTONIA

  Instead, the Court's role is to determine whether the procedures followed were in compliance with the requirements of Article 8 and whether the reasons provided by the domestic courts were relevant and sufficient in the context of the case before them (compare A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, § 65 and 70, 8 January 2013).
• EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 6360/13

  D'ACUNTO ET PIGNATARO c. ITALIE

  Rappelant le principe énoncé en la matière dans l'arrêt Scozzari et Giunta (précité, § 138), la Cour indique avoir reconnu en général la légitimité à agir du parent biologique privé de l'autorité parentale, en s'appuyant sur la considération fondamentale que toute atteinte potentielle aux droits du mineur devrait être examinée par elle afin d'éviter le risque que certains intérêts des mineurs ne soient pas portés à son attention et que ceux-ci soient privés d'une protection effective des droits qu'ils tirent de la Convention (N.Ts. et autres c. Géorgie, no 71776/12, §§ 52-54, 2 février 2016, et A.K. et L. c. Croatie, no 37956/11, §§ 46-50, 8 janvier 2013).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 17219/20

  S.M. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  ISAKOV v. RUSSIA