Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
S.S. v. SLOVENIA
Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
S.S. v. SLOVENIA
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08
Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
[1] For the general impact of the (non-)existence of a relevant consensus between Contracting States concerning a particular legal matter on use of the margin of appreciation doctrine, see, mutatis mutandis, the Grand Chamber's recent practice in: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, no. 60367/08 and 961/11, 24 January 2017, §§ 79, 85; Naït-Liman v. Switzerland, no. 41357/07, 15 March 2018, §§ 181-203; and Correia de Matos v. Portugal, no.56402/12, 4 April 2018, § 137. In the case of Bayatan v. Armenia (no. 23459/03, 7 July 2011, § 102), the Grand Chamber states that in defining the meaning of terms and notions in the text of the Convention, the Court can and must take into account elements of international law other than the Convention and the interpretation of such elements by competent organs.[8] Once this link between the Court's case-law on treating vulnerable categories with special attention and increased protection and the broad consensus under the CRPD on special and necessary measures or modifications for persons with disabilities is established, it is of secondary importance whether this can be legally defined as an aspect of "positive discrimination" towards disabled persons in the sense that the right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when States, without an objective and reasonable justification, fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different (see, mutatis mutandis, Case relating to certain aspects of laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, 23 July 1968, Series A, No. 6, § 10; Thlimmenos v. Greece, no. 34369/97, 6 April 2000, § 44; Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, 24 February 2002, § 82; Andrle v. the Czech Republic, no. 6268/08, 17 February 2011, § 48; Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, no. 60367/08 and 961/11, [GC], 24 January 2017, §§ 64 and 82).
- EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10
RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
As regards the applicant's complaint concerning her opportunity to influence the decisions interfering with her family life, which was raised by the applicant also under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 (see paragraph 107 above), the Court, being a master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, ECHR 2018) and having regard to the applicant's arguments, considers that this issue has been appropriately dealt with under Article 8 alone (see paragraph 98 above). - EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 56402/12
CORREIA DE MATOS c. PORTUGAL
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
[1] For the general impact of the (non-)existence of a relevant consensus between Contracting States concerning a particular legal matter on use of the margin of appreciation doctrine, see, mutatis mutandis, the Grand Chamber's recent practice in: Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, no. 60367/08 and 961/11, 24 January 2017, §§ 79, 85; Naït-Liman v. Switzerland, no. 41357/07, 15 March 2018, §§ 181-203; and Correia de Matos v. Portugal, no.56402/12, 4 April 2018, § 137. In the case of Bayatan v. Armenia (no. 23459/03, 7 July 2011, § 102), the Grand Chamber states that in defining the meaning of terms and notions in the text of the Convention, the Court can and must take into account elements of international law other than the Convention and the interpretation of such elements by competent organs.
- EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88
OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
Having regard to the text of the provision in question, other related provisions of the Family Act (see paragraph 60 above), the Supreme Court's interpretation in an earlier case of the conditions for withdrawing parental rights (see paragraph 62 above), and the reasons relied upon by the first and second-instance courts (see paragraphs 43 and 45 above) and endorsed by the Constitutional Court in the present case (see paragraph 48 above), the Court is satisfied that the impugned measures were adopted in accordance with the Family Act (see, mutatis mutandis, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, §§ 59-60, Series A no. 246-A). - EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83
OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
The Court further 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 parents and the child (see, in particular, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 81, Series A no. 130). - EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 52557/14
S.H. c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
Indeed, the Court has previously found that the fact that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his or her upbringing would not on its own justify a compulsory measure of removal from the care of the biological parents; other circumstances must exist pointing to the "necessity" for such an interference with the parents" right under Article 8 of the Convention to enjoy a family life with their child (see S.H. v. Italy, no. 52557/14, § 56, 13 October 2015, and K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 173, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 9056/14
AKINNIBOSUN c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16
In the case of vulnerable persons, the authorities must show particular vigilance and afford increased protection (see S.H. v. Italy, cited above, § 54, and Akinnibosun v. Italy, no. 9056/14, § 82, 16 July 2015).
- EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 17219/20
S.M. v. RUSSIA
Admissibility 41. The Court notes at the outset that, by its very nature, the tie between the applicant and her children comes within the notion of family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention (see A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 51-52, 8 January 2013, and S.S. v. Slovenia, no. 40938/16, § 78, 30 October 2018).