Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z. v. SLOVENIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (locus standi) No Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  In both contexts, regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, p. 19, § 49).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents 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, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents 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, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  The Court deems it appropriate to examine these arguments in the context of the latter provision (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57, ECHR 2002-I, and V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 115, 13 March 2007).
• EuG, 10.12.2010 - T-494/08

  Ryanair / Kommission - Zugang zu Dokumenten - Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1049/2001 - …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  The constitutional appeal was in this case rejected as manifestly ill-founded (decision number Up-498/08, 15 April 2008).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01

  MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  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, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  IGLESIAS GIL ET A.U.I. c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  In relation to the State's obligation to implement positive measures, the Court has held that Article 8 includes for parents 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, 03.06.2008 - 17314/03

  CAREVIC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  The Government also submitted a copy of a domestic court judgement issued under the 2006 Act in one of the cases the Court had previously declared inadmissible for being premature (see Carevic v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 17314/03, 3 June 2008).
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 of the Convention and, whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see Norris v. Ireland, judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142, § 31).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  Consequently, even though the parent has been deprived of parental rights, his or her standing as the natural parent suffices to afford him or her the necessary power to apply to the Court on the child's behalf too, in order to protect his or her interests (see, for comparison, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 138, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Siebert, cited above).
• EGMR, 28.11.1988 - 10929/84
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.12.2001 - 31178/96

  Einbenennung eines nichtehelichen Kindes ohne Zustimmung des leiblichen Vaters; …
• EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 32817/02

  E. W. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 16400/06

  NEZIROVIC v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 8673/05

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 23280/08

  MOOG v. GERMANY

  Dezember 2009; und Z../. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43155/05, Rdnr. 115, 30.

  87.In Bezug auf die positiven Pflichten des Staates nach Artikel 8 der Konvention (…siehe Rdnr. 59) hat der Gerichtshof in früheren Rechtssachen bereits die Auffassung vertreten, dass die ineffektive und insbesondere verzögerte Durchführung von Sorgerechtsverfahren einen Verstoß gegen Artikel 8 der Konvention begründen kann (siehe Z../. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43155/05, Rdnr. 142, 30. November 2010; und V.A.M../. Serbien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39177/05, Rdnr. 146, 13.

• EGMR, 22.03.2018 - 11308/16

  Zwölf Stämme: Entzug des Sorgerechts nach Prügeln gebilligt

  Oktober 2016; Z../. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43155/05, Rdnr. 142, 30.
• EGMR, 22.03.2018 - 68125/14

  SCHOTT v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof hat in einer Reihe von Fällen, darunter einige gegen Deutschland, seine Praxis in Bezug auf Rügen festgelegt, die im Hinblick auf Verletzungen des Rechts auf Achtung des Familienlebens und die Frage einer ineffektiven, insbesondere verzögerten Durchführung eines Sorgerechtsverfahrens erhoben wurden (siehe z. B. M../. Deutschland, Individualbeschwerden Nrn. 23280/08 und 2334/10, 6. Oktober 2016; Z../. Slowenien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 43155/05, 30. November 2010; und V.A.M../. Serbien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 39177/05, 13. März 2007).

• OLG Köln, 07.12.2021 - 14 WF 160/21

  Entzug des Sorgerechts Verwerfung einer Beschleunigungsbeschwerde Fehlendes …

  Zu beachten ist weiterhin, dass der sich aus Art. 8 EMRK ergebenden positiven Verpflichtung zur beschleunigten Verfahrensführung wegen der Gefahr der Entfremdung von Eltern und Kind auch dadurch begegnet werden kann, dass das Gericht während des laufenden sorgerechtlichen Verfahrens regelmäßige Umgangskontakte zwischen den Eltern und dem Kind anordnet (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 30.11.2010, 43155/05, Rechtssache I gg. J, Internetadresse 1, Rn. 154 ff).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 23608/16

  PETROVY v. RUSSIA

  Given that the first applicant has parental authority in respect of X, the Court finds that he has standing to act on his son's behalf (compare Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 147, 27 September 2011, and Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 116, 30 November 2010; and compare and contrast Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, nos. 8673/05 and 9733/05, §§ 88-90, 1 December 2009 (with further references), and K.B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 36216/13, §§ 109-10, 14 March 2017).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 16605/09

  N.D. v. SLOVENIA

  The Court notes that the 2006 Act is aimed specifically at addressing the issue of length of proceedings, which is evident from the criteria used in assessing its reasonableness (see Grzincic v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 40, 3 May 2007), but also from the limitation of the amount of compensation which may be awarded for non-pecuniary damage to a maximum of EUR 5, 000. Thus, in a number of cases in which the procedural shortcomings examined under Articles 2 and 8 consisted mainly or predominantly of delays (see, in addition to Silih and Eberhard, cited above, Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 129, 30 November 2010, and K. v. Slovenia, no. 41293/05, §§ 111-120, 7 July 2011), the Court did not require the applicants to use the remedies available under the 2006 Act, as the focus of its analysis was not merely the length of proceedings, but the question whether, in the circumstances of the case seen as a whole, the State had complied with its positive obligations under the relevant provisions of the Convention.
• EGMR, 20.09.2022 - 7833/12

  POPADIC v. SERBIA

  The Court deems it appropriate to examine these arguments in the context of the latter provision (see, for example, Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56-57, 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, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  [ENG]

  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, 11.12.2014 - 22909/10

  HROMADKA AND HROMADKOVA v. RUSSIA

  It is recalled that in cases arising out of disputes between parents, it is the parent entitled to custody who is entrusted with safeguarding the child's interests (see Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 115, 30 November 2010, and Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, no. 8673/05 and 9733/05, § 88, 1 December 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04

  [ENG]

  However, the Court has already held that the remedies introduced by the 2006 Act specifically concern the right to have one's case examined within a reasonable time, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, but do not address situations in which the excessive length of proceedings is examined in terms of interference by the State with the applicant's rights under Article 8, in view of the positive obligations of the State under that provision (see Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia, cited above, § 105; Z. v. Slovenia, no. 43155/05, § 129, 30 November 2010; and K. v. Slovenia, no. 41293/05, §§ 111-120, 7 July 2011).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 40628/10

  BALL v. ANDORRA
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 13240/15

  MÜLLER v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 13553/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 45082/05

  S.I. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 41293/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 5313/12

  LESZNIEWSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 20207/16

  PALESCAK v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 27148/12

  RIBIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.01.2015 - 770/12

  RUKAVINA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42158/06

  GOLOB v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 24654/12

  STULÍR ET AUTRES c. RÉPUBLIQUE TCHÈQUE
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 26163/12

  JOLY c. ALLEMAGNE