Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A. v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08
• EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 55164/08

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  The Court stresses that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France, [GC], no. 25803/94, § 101, ECHR 1999-V; Mayeka and Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 48, ECHR 2006-XI; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  The Court has already accepted that a general policy or measure which is apparently neutral but has disproportionately prejudicial effects on persons or groups of persons who, as for instance in the present case, are identifiable only on the basis of gender, may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group (see, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001; Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58461/00, 6 January 2005; and Orsus and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, § 150, ECHR 2010-...), unless that measure is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate, necessary and proportionate.
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  While the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for private and family life and these obligations may involve the adoption of measures in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y, cited above, §§ 23-24; Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-I; and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 44, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38719/97

  D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 65, 12 June 2008; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 65, 12 June 2008; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  Furthermore, discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 13178/03

  MUBILANZILA MAYEKA ET KANIKI MITUNGA c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  The Court stresses that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and that the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see, mutatis mutandis, Selmouni v. France, [GC], no. 25803/94, § 101, ECHR 1999-V; Mayeka and Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, § 48, ECHR 2006-XI; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 47).
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  The Court must grant substantial deference to the national courts in the choice of appropriate measures, while also maintaining a certain power of review and the power to intervene in cases of manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the results obtained at domestic level (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 62, 20 December 2007; Atalay v. Turkey, no. 1249/03, § 40, 18 September 2008; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 78, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 18.09.2008 - 1249/03

  ATALAY v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  The Court must grant substantial deference to the national courts in the choice of appropriate measures, while also maintaining a certain power of review and the power to intervene in cases of manifest disproportion between the gravity of the act and the results obtained at domestic level (see, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 62, 20 December 2007; Atalay v. Turkey, no. 1249/03, § 40, 18 September 2008; and Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 78, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 46598/06

  BRANKO TOMASIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 55164/08

  An individual programme of this kind in respect of B takes on additional importance in view of the fact that his prison term was combined with a measure as significant as compulsory psychiatric treatment ordered by the domestic courts in relation to the serious death threats he had made (see, by way of comparison, Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 56, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

• EGMR, 21.06.2012 - 5786/08

  E.S. v. SWEDEN

  The states are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see, for example, A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 4938/16

  PRANJIC-M-LUKIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see, for example, A. v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010) and that mental health is a crucial part of private life (see, for example, Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 47, ECHR 2001-I, and Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 165, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND

  The Court has acknowledged the particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection (see, mutatis mutandis, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 27, ECHR 2009; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 64-65, 12 June 2008; and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 44-45, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, §§ 55-61, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 07.07.2011 - 39229/03

  FYODOROV AND FYODOROVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court has previously held, in various contexts, that the concept of private life includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see, for example, A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 60, ECHR 2010-...) and that mental health is a crucial part of private life (see, for example, Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, § 165, 26 November 2009).
• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 73521/12

  R.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The written submissions referred to a number of judgments of this Court concerning domestic violence against women which, it said, clarified that States had positive obligations in this area, including an obligation to protect victims from violent behaviour, by reference to Articles 2, 3 and 8 (citing Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, 31 May 2007; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, 12 June 2008; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009; E.S. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 8227/04, 15 September 2009; A. v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, 14 October 2010; and Hajduová v. Slovakia, no. 2660/03, 30 November 2010).