Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALL v. ANDORRA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALL c. ANDORRE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'article 8 - Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale (Article 8 - Obligations positives Article 8-1 - Respect de la vie familiale) (französisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BALL v. ANDORRA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  The Court observes that the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are closely linked to his substantive complaints under Article 8. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Dolhamre v. Sweden, no. 67/04, §§ 80-81, 8 June 2010, and Saleck Bardi v. Spain, no. 66167/09, § 31, 24 May 2011), deems it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints under the latter provision (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I; V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 115, 13 March 2007; and Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 130, 30 November 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  In both the negative and positive aspects of Article 8, regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both situations the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 174-175, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures (see, amongst others, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).

• EGMR, 27.11.1992 - 13441/87

  OLSSON c. SUÈDE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures (see, amongst others, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November 1992, § 90, Series A no. 250), but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that for parents Article 8 includes a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 39177/05

  V.A.M. v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  The Court observes that the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are closely linked to his substantive complaints under Article 8. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Dolhamre v. Sweden, no. 67/04, §§ 80-81, 8 June 2010, and Saleck Bardi v. Spain, no. 66167/09, § 31, 24 May 2011), deems it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints under the latter provision (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I; V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 115, 13 March 2007; and Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 130, 30 November 2010).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01

  MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  The Court notes that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  In both the negative and positive aspects of Article 8, regard must be had to the fair balance to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both situations the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 174-175, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  The Court observes that the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are closely linked to his substantive complaints under Article 8. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Dolhamre v. Sweden, no. 67/04, §§ 80-81, 8 June 2010, and Saleck Bardi v. Spain, no. 66167/09, § 31, 24 May 2011), deems it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints under the latter provision (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I; V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 115, 13 March 2007; and Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 130, 30 November 2010).
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 66167/09

  SALECK BARDI AGAINST SPAIN AND 1 OTHER CASE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  The Court observes that the applicant's complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are closely linked to his substantive complaints under Article 8. The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Dolhamre v. Sweden, no. 67/04, §§ 80-81, 8 June 2010, and Saleck Bardi v. Spain, no. 66167/09, § 31, 24 May 2011), deems it appropriate to examine the applicant's complaints under the latter provision (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I; V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 115, 13 March 2007; and Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 130, 30 November 2010).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 67/04

  DOLHAMRE v. SWEDEN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 36216/13

  K.B. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  As stated in the judgment, in a case like the present one it is the Court's task to examine whether the domestic authorities took all the necessary steps to facilitate contact that could reasonably be demanded in the specific circumstances of the case (see paragraph 142 of the judgment, and, among other authorities, Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Ball v. Andorra, no. 40628/10, § 49, 11 December 2012; Kuppinger v. Germany, no. 62198/11, § 101, 15 January 2015; and Ribić v. Croatia, no. 27148/12, § 93, 2 April 2015).
• EGMR, 24.06.2025 - 61347/21

  D.G. AND S.G. v. SERBIA

  Rn. 175 The Court reiterates in that regard that in relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, it has held that for parents, Article 8 includes a right that steps be taken to reunite them with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to facilitate such reunions (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 128, ECHR 2000-VIII; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V; and Ball v. Andorra, no. 40628/10, § 47, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 08.02.2024 - 39980/22

  JANOCKOVÁ AND KVOCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Rn. 42 The Court has summarised the relevant principles in, for example, Ball v. Andorra (no. 40628/10, §§ 45-51, 11 December 2012, with further references) as follows.
• EGMR, 18.03.2026 - 17290/23

  MÜNSTER c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE

  Rn. 56 Pour les principes pertinents concernant l'obligation pour l'État de mettre en œuvre des mesures positives lorsque des conflits au sujet du droit de garde ou de visite surgissent entre les parents, la Cour renvoie en particulier aux arrêts Ball c. Andorre (no 40628/10, §§ 45-51, 11 décembre 2012), Ribić c. Croatie (no 27148/12, §§ 92-96, 2 avril 2015) et Zavridou c. Chypre (no 14680/22, §§ 77-80, 8 octobre 2024).