Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VUJICA v. CROATIA

  Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficent (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VUJICA v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12
• EGMR, 22.11.2017 - 56163/12

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2010 - 4694/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  In particular, in Mustafa and Armagan Akin case it was struck by the absence of reasoning justifying the separation of the siblings, and held that maintaining the ties between them was too important to be left to the discretion and whim of their parents (see Mustafa and Armagan Akin v. Turkey (no. 4694/03, §§ 23-24, 6 April 2010).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 13589/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  The Court has acknowledged this in the Cristescu case where it held that the domestic authorities had had a sufficient evidentiary basis (including statements made by witnesses, psychological and other expert assessments, and the parties" - the children's and the parents" - own wishes) for the decision to separate the two brothers even if the separation had eventually proved to have had a negative effect on the smooth continuation of the relationships within the family (see Cristescu v. Romania, no. 13589/07, § 62, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 07.12.2006 - 31111/04

  HUNT v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  Having regard to the finding relating to Article 8, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hunt v. Ukraine, no. 31111/04, §§ 61-66, 7 December 2006).

• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  Hoffmann ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  The Court reiterates in this respect that domestic measures hindering enjoyment of family life, such as a decision granting custody of children to a parent, constitute an interference with the right to respect for family life (see, for example, Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 29, Series A no. 255-C, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 171, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  The Court reiterates that in the area of international child abduction the positive obligations which Article 8 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States with respect to reuniting parents with their children must be interpreted in the light of the requirements of the Hague Convention (see, for example, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 95, ECHR 2000-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 54, 15 December 2005; and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  The Court reiterates in this respect that domestic measures hindering enjoyment of family life, such as a decision granting custody of children to a parent, constitute an interference with the right to respect for family life (see, for example, Hoffmann v. Austria, 23 June 1993, § 29, Series A no. 255-C, and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 171, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 35030/04

  KARADZIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  The Court reiterates that in the area of international child abduction the positive obligations which Article 8 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States with respect to reuniting parents with their children must be interpreted in the light of the requirements of the Hague Convention (see, for example, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 95, ECHR 2000-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 54, 15 December 2005; and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 93, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 51358/99

  PASA ET ERKAN EROL c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 56163/12

  The Court first reiterates that an applicant cannot claim to be a victim in a case where he or she is partly responsible for the alleged violation (see, mutatis mutandis, Pasa and Erkan Erol v. Turkey, no. 51358/99, §§ 19-22, 12 December 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen