Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLAGA v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Blaga v. Romania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BLAGA v. ROMANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.06.1978 - 6232/73

  König ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  While it is not the Court's task to determine whether the proceedings in which the applicant was involved were properly stayed (see, mutatis mutandis, Broka v. Latvia, no. 70926/01, § 24, 28 June 2007), delays caused by the adjournment or suspension of proceedings pending the outcome of another case can be attributable to the State (see, mutatis mutandis, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, §§ 104-05, Series A no. 27).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case; the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities; and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 47116/99

  GÜMÜSTEN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  In the Court's opinion, the length of the proceedings can only be explained by the failure of the domestic authorities to deal with the case diligently (see Gümüsten v. Turkey, no. 47116/99, §§ 24-26, 30 November 2004).

• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 70926/01

  BROKA v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  While it is not the Court's task to determine whether the proceedings in which the applicant was involved were properly stayed (see, mutatis mutandis, Broka v. Latvia, no. 70926/01, § 24, 28 June 2007), delays caused by the adjournment or suspension of proceedings pending the outcome of another case can be attributable to the State (see, mutatis mutandis, König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, §§ 104-05, Series A no. 27).
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 59129/00

  TIBBLING v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  Furthermore, when assessing the relevance and reasonableness of an adjournment of a case pending the outcome of another case, the Court must take into account what is at stake for the persons involved (see, mutatis mutandis, Tibbling v. Sweden, no. 59129/00, § 32, 11 October 2005).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  Moreover, the States" obligations under Article 8 of the Convention are to be interpreted in harmony with the general principles of international law, and, in the context of international child abduction, particular account must be given to the provisions of the Hague Convention (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 29, Series A no. 18, and Ignaccolo-Zenide, cited above, § 95).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  In this area the decisive issue is whether a fair balance between the competing interests at stake - those of the child, of the two parents, and of public order - was struck, within the margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007), bearing in mind, however, that the child's best interests must be the primary consideration (see Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, § 59, ECHR 2000-IX) and that the objectives of prevention and immediate return correspond to a specific conception of "the best interests of the child" ( see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 95, 26 November 2013).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01

  MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  The Court reiterates that the mutual enjoyment by parents and children of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life and is protected under Article 8 of the Convention (see Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005, and Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, §§ 28-29, 27 July 2006).
• EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 47457/99

  Bestimmung des Aufenthaltsorts gemeinsamer Kinder nach Trennung der Eltern; Eine …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  47457/99 and 47458/99, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 6457/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 54443/10

  The delays in the procedure alone enable the Court to conclude that the authorities had not complied with their positive obligations under the Convention (see Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 21.02.2012 - 16965/10

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 10395/19

  MICHNEA v. ROMANIA

  The relevant provisions of Law no. 369/2004 on the enforcement of the Hague Convention are presented in Ferrari v. Romania (no. 1714/10, §§ 25-28, 28 April 2015, and Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 50, 1 July 2014).

  That said, notwithstanding the State's margin of appreciation, the Court must satisfy itself that the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the impugned measures by the domestic courts was fair and allowed those concerned to present their case fully, and that the best interests of the child were defended (ibid., § 102 with further references, and Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 67, 1 July 2014).

• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 9256/19

  VOICA v. ROMANIA

  The relevant provisions of Law no. 369/2004 on the enforcement of the Hague Convention are set out in Ferrari v. Romania (no. 1714/10, § 25, 28 April 2015) and Blaga v. Romania (no. 54443/10, § 50, 1 July 2014).

  That said, notwithstanding the State's margin of appreciation, the Court must satisfy itself that the decision-making process leading to the adoption of the impugned measures by the domestic courts was fair and allowed those concerned to present their case fully, and that the best interests of the child were defended (ibid., § 102, with further references; see also Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 67, 1 July 2014).

• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 53661/15

  SEVERE v. AUSTRIA

  While exceptional circumstances can demand of the respondent State the taking of concrete measures to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the subsequent developments in the children's situation in the present case do not allow for an imposition on the respondent State to order the children's return to the applicant in France; rather it is up to the domestic authorities to examine this issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Pontes v. Portugal, no. 19554/09, §§ 107-09, 10 April 2012, and Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 107, 1 July 2014).

• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 49450/17

  O.C.I. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  The Court further observes that the interference was provided for by law, namely Article 12 of the Hague Convention, and that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the children's best interests (see, mutatis mutandis, Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 74, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 35845/24

  SPYRIDONIDIS v. ARMENIA

  Their reasoning cannot be regarded as automatic or stereotyped; on the contrary, it was sufficiently detailed and consistent with the exceptions provided for in the Hague Convention and the principles established in the Court's case-law (see Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 76-78, 1 July 2014, and Vladimir Ushakov v. Russia, no. 15122/17, § 82, 18 June 2019).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 2171/14

  G.N. v. POLAND

  Consequently, even though the six-week time-limit is non-obligatory under the Hague Convention, the Court considers that exceeding it by sixty-four weeks, in the absence of any circumstances capable of exempting the domestic courts from the duty to strictly observe it, does not meet the urgency of the situation and is not in compliance with the positive obligation to act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children (see K.J. v. Poland, cited above, § 72; Carlson v. Switzerland, no. 49492/06, § 76, 6 November 2008; Karrer v. Romania, no. 16965/10, § 54, 21 February 2012; R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, § 70, 21 July 2015; Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 83, 1 July 2014; and Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 82, 5 April 2005; see also, in contrast, Lipkowsky (dec.), cited above).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  K.J. v. POLAND

  Consequently, even though the six-week time-limit is non-obligatory under the Hague Convention (see paragraph 33 above), the Court considers that exceeding it by forty-five weeks, which is more than eightfold, in the absence of any circumstances capable of exempting the domestic courts from the duty to strictly observe it, does not meet the urgency of the situation and is not in compliance with the positive obligation to act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children (see Carlson v. Switzerland, no. 49492/06, § 76, 6 November 2008; Karrer v. Romania, no. 16965/10, § 54, 21 February 2012; R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, § 70, 21 July 2015; Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 83, 1 July 2014; and Monory, cited above, § 82; see also, a contrario, Lipkowsky (dec.), cited above).
• OLG Celle, 27.01.2026 - 15 UF 246/25

  Strenge Anforderungen an das Vorliegen einer Gefährdung i.R.e. Anordnung der …

  An der letzten Voraussetzung fehlt es schon dann, wenn das Kind erkennbar durch den Entführer beeinflusst worden ist, etwa durch Geschenke oder Drohungen (EGMR, NJOZ 2015, 1148 Rn. 78; AG Saarbrücken FamRZ 2003, 398 ff; Hanke FamRB 2016, 227;… BeckOGK/Markwardt, 1.12.2023, HKÜ Art. 13 Rn. 51).
• EGMR, 02.05.2019 - 19601/16

  ADZIC v. CROATIA (NO. 2)

  Insufficient reasoning in the ruling dismissing or accepting objections to the return of the child under the Hague Convention would be contrary to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see X v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 106-107; and Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 70, 1 July 2014).
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 21347/21

  DOMITREK v. CROATIA

  Insufficient reasoning in a ruling dismissing or accepting objections to the return of a child under the Hague Child Abduction Convention would be contrary to the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention (see X v. Latvia, cited above, §§ 106-7, and Blaga v. Romania, no. 54443/10, § 70, 1 July 2014).
• OLG Brandenburg, 06.10.2021 - 10 UF 75/21

  Ablehnung der Rückführung minderjähriger Kinder in den Heimatstaat Polen
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 16202/14

  M.V. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 51312/16

  M.K. c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 16205/21

  G.K. v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 57202/21

  KUKAVICA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2025 - 103/22

  MAKRIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 13.06.2023 - 51056/21

  OSSO v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2026 - 24011/23

  BADEA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 14309/21

  I.Z.R. AND A.J.R. v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 1015/13

  BEKTAS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 59164/09

  C. v. ROMANIA AND AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 46263/20

  BERCUCI v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 39398/20

  CIOCIRLAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 7198/04

  IOSUB CARAS CONTRE LA ROUMANIE ET 2 AUTRES AFFAIRES