Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Y.C. v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NJW 2013, 2495

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 12643/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 4547/10

  See also §§ 67 and 81 of Kutzner v. Germany (26 February 2002, no. 46544/99), and passim Moser v. Austria (21 September 2006, no. 12643/02) and Kurochkin v. Ukraine (20 May 2010, no. 42276/08).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 35348/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 4547/10

  First, the Court must examine whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures were "relevant and sufficient"; second it must be examined whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see K and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001-VII; R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38000/05, § 34, 30 September 2008; T.S. and D.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61540/09, 19 January 2010; A.D. and O.D. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28680/06, § 82, 16 March 2010; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010; and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, §§ 75 and 81, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 35991/04

  KEARNS c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 4547/10

  The Court reiterates that in cases concerning the placing of a child for adoption, which entails the permanent severance of family ties, the best interests of the child are paramount (see Johansen v. Norway, 7 August 1996, § 78, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; Kearns v. France, no. 35991/04, § 79, 10 January 2008; and R. and H., cited above, §§ 73 and 81).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 61540/09

  T.S. AND D.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 4547/10

  First, the Court must examine whether, in the light of the case as a whole, the reasons adduced to justify the measures were "relevant and sufficient"; second it must be examined whether the decision-making process was fair and afforded due respect to the applicant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see K and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, § 154, ECHR 2001-VII; R.K. and A.K. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38000/05, § 34, 30 September 2008; T.S. and D.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61540/09, 19 January 2010; A.D. and O.D. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28680/06, § 82, 16 March 2010; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 134, 6 July 2010; and R. and H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35348/06, §§ 75 and 81, 31 May 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 25358/12

  PARADISO ET CAMPANELLI c. ITALIE

  Pour qu'une mesure de ce type se justifie, elle doit répondre au but de protéger l'enfant confronté à un danger immédiat pour celui-ci (Scozzari et Giunta c. Italie [GC], nos 39221/98 et 41963/98, § 148, CEDH 2000-VIII ; Neulinger et Shuruk c. Suisse [GC], no 41615/07, § 136, CEDH 2010 ; Y.C. c. Royaume-Uni, no 4547/10, §§ 133-138, 13 mars 2012 ; Pontes c. Portugal, no 19554/09, §§ 74-80, 10 avril 2012).
• EGMR, 10.09.2019 - 37283/13

  STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Il échet dès lors de déterminer, en fonction des circonstances de chaque espèce et notamment de la gravité des mesures à prendre, si les parents ont pu jouer dans le processus décisionnel, considéré comme un tout, un rôle assez grand pour leur accorder la protection requise de leurs intérêts et ont été en mesure de faire valoir pleinement leurs droits (voir, par exemple, W. c. Royaume-Uni, précité, § 64, T.P. et K.M. c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 28945/95, § 72, CEDH 2001-V (extraits), Neulinger et Shuruk, précité, § 139, et Y.C. c. Royaume-Uni, no 4547/10, § 138, 13 mars 2012,).
• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 37283/13

  STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  This is accordingly a domain in which there is an even greater call than usual for protection against arbitrary interferences (see, for example, Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 136, 13 March 2012, with further references).

  [12] See, for example, Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, 13 March 2012, § 138, and §§ 102, 107 and 110 of the majority judgment which refer to the need for relevant and sufficient reasons.

• EGMR, 24.06.2025 - 61347/21

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

  What has to be determined is whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and notably the serious nature of the decisions to be taken, the parents have been involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide them with the requisite protection of their interests and have been able fully to present their case (see, for example, W. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 64; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, § 72, ECHR 2001-V (extracts); Neulinger and Shuruk, cited above, § 139; and Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 138, 13 March 2012).

  Rn. 183 In that connection, the Court reiterates that the domestic authorities are required to conduct an in-depth examination of the entire family situation (see Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 138, 13 March 2012, and M.L. v. Norway, no. 43701/14, § 42, 7 September 2017).

• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 40938/16

  S.S. v. SLOVENIA

  Lastly, as to the decision-making process, in similar cases the Court has relied on the following principles, summarised in Y.C. v. the United Kingdom (no. 4547/10, §§ 138 -139, 13 March 2012):.

  When the Court in paragraph 87 cites its own previous judgment in the case of Y.C. v. the United Kingdom (no. 4547/10, 13 March 2012), it reiterates that it is "incumbent upon the Court to ascertain whether the domestic courts conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors, in particular of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature, and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with a constant concern for determining what would be the best solution for the child."[34] Therefore, the strict scrutiny test when examining the withdrawal of parental rights from a person with a disability, usually an irreversible step, calls for protection which goes beyond the usual assessment of the impact of the proposed care measure on the parents and child, and the usual check of whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis, whether reasons were relevant and sufficient, whether parents had sufficient opportunity to participate in the procedure and whether the children themselves were able to express their views.

• EGMR, 12.01.2023 - 27700/15

  KiLiC v. AUSTRIA

  Another aspect the Court will look at is whether the domestic courts conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation (see Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 138, 13 March 2012 and, more recently, M.L. v. Norway, no. 43701/14, § 42, 7 September 2017).
• EGMR, 10.12.2021 - 15379/16

  ABDI IBRAHIM v. NORWAY

  Il échet dès lors de déterminer, en fonction des circonstances de chaque espèce et notamment de la gravité des mesures à prendre, si les parents ont pu jouer dans le processus décisionnel, considéré comme un tout, un rôle assez grand pour leur accorder la protection requise de leurs intérêts et ont été en mesure de faire valoir pleinement leurs droits (voir, par exemple, W. c. Royaume-Uni, précité, § 64, T.P. et K.M. c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 28945/95, § 72, CEDH 2001-V (extraits), Neulinger et Shuruk, précité, § 139, et Y.C. c. Royaume-Uni, no 4547/10, § 138, 13 mars 2012).
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 27496/15

  MOHAMED HASAN v. NORWAY

  The margin of appreciation, relied upon in all cases and emphasised in Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, 13 March 2012 and K. and T. v. Finland [GC], no. 25702/94, ECHR 2001-VII, was highlighted.

  This is accordingly a domain in which there is an even greater call than usual for protection against arbitrary interferences (see, for example, Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 136, 13 March 2012, with further references).

• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 12654/22

  DRAGONI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Rn. 91 In the present case, unlike in other cases assessed by the Court, the first and second applicants' child was not exposed to a situation of violence or physical or mental ill-treatment (see, conversely, Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, §§ 146-50, 13 March 2012; Dewinne v. Belgium (dec.), no. 56024/00, 10 March 2005; and Zakharova v. France (dec.), no. 57306/00, 13 December 2005), or sexual abuse (see, conversely, Covezzi and Morselli v. Italy, no. 52763/99, § 104, 9 May 2003).
• EGMR, 09.12.2021 - 53487/13

  R.M. v. LATVIA

  It should be noted that in cases of this type the child's interests must come before all other considerations (see Y.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4547/10, § 138, 13 March 2012).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 52557/14

  HODSON c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 30.07.2013 - 14609/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 19554/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 12.07.2018 - 6360/13

  D'ACUNTO ET PIGNATARO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 10383/09

  MAMCHUR v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 59435/10

  A.E.L. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 51555/09

  J. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 62110/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.09.2017 - 43701/14

  M.L. v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 58455/13

  POPOVSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 38134/20

  N.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM