Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGLESIAS GIL AND A.U.I. v. SPAIN

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.03.2002 - 56673/00
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96

  Schießbefehl

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that the Convention must be applied in accordance with the rules of international law, in particular, those concerning the international protection of human rights (see Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, § 90, ECHR 2001-II, and Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 55, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  The Court reiterates that it is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law (see, among other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, § 46).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and 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, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  The decisive issue in the present case, therefore, is whether the national authorities took all the measures that could reasonably be demanded of them to facilitate the execution of the orders of the domestic courts awarding the first applicant custody of and sole parental responsibility for the child (see Hokkanen v. Finland, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299-A, p. 22, § 58).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 32842/96

  NUUTINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 56673/00

  As to the State's obligation to take positive measures, the Court has repeatedly held that Article 8 includes a right for parents to measures that will enable them to be reunited with their children and an obligation on the national authorities to take such measures (see, among other authorities, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I, and Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 14600/05

  ESKINAZI ET CHELOUCHE c. TURQUIE

  Pour une partie des dispositions pertinentes de ce texte voir, par exemple, Iglesias Gil et A.U.I. c. Espagne (no 56673/00, § 29, CEDH 2003-V).

  Il ne semble pas non plus prêter à controverse que, dans le chef des deux requérantes, les procédures dénoncées constituaient une « ingérence'au sens du paragraphe 2 (McMichael c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 24 février 1995, série A no 307-B, p. 57, §§ 86 et 87), étant entendu que la frontière entre les obligations négatives et positives de l'Etat au titre de cette disposition ne se prête pas à une définition précise (voir, par exemple, Iglesias Gil et A.U.I. c. Espagne, no 56673/00, § 48, CEDH 2003-V; Sylvester c. Autriche, nos 36812/97 et 40104/98, § 55, 24 avril 2003).

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 1562/10

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that it is in the first place for the national authorities, and in particular the courts of first instance and appeal, to construe and apply the domestic law (see, for example, Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 61, ECHR 2003-V; Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 105, ECHR 2003-X; and Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 11.12.2006 - 41092/06

  S. M. gegen Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof weist auch darauf hin, dass er die maßgeblichen Normen des Volkerrechts berücksichtigen muss, die insbesondere den internationalen Menschenrechtsschutz betreffen (siehe Rechtssachen Iglesias Gil ./. Spanien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 56673/00, Rdnr. 51, 29.

• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 43155/05

  [ENG]

  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, 22.04.2010 - 4824/06

  MACREADY c. REPUBLIQUE TCHEQUE

  Néanmoins, dans la mesure où la Cour est compétente pour contrôler la procédure suivie devant les tribunaux internes, en particulier pour rechercher si l'interprétation donnée par ces juridictions des garanties de la Convention de La Haye est à l'origine d'une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention (Iglesias Gil et A.U.I. c. Espagne, no 56673/00, § 61, CEDH 2003-V; Carlson, arrêt précité, § 73), elle est amenée à examiner si et dans quelle mesure la manière dont celles-ci ont procédé cadre avec l'objet et le but de la Convention de La Haye, lesquels consistent à assurer le retour immédiat des enfants déplacés ou retenus illicitement.
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 35943/02

  TRANSADO-TRANSPORTES FLUVIAIS DO SADO, S.A., c. PORTUGAL

  A maintes reprises et s'agissant de domaines très variés, la Cour a déclaré qu'il incombe au premier chef aux autorités nationales et, singulièrement, aux cours et tribunaux, d'interpréter et d'appliquer le droit interne (voir, par exemple, l'arrêt Winterwerp c. Pays-Bas du 24 octobre 1979, série A, no 33, p. 20, § 46, Iglesias Gil et A.U.I. c. Espagne, no 56673/00, § 61, CEDH 2003, et Slivenko c. Lettonie, no 48321/99, § 105, CEDH 2003).
• EGMR, 07.01.2025 - 18737/18

  F.D. AND H.C. v. PORTUGAL

  As regards the obligations that Article 8 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States with respect to reuniting parents with their children, they should be interpreted in the light of the requirements of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 32 above; see Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 95, 25 January 2000; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 51, 29 April 2003; and Maumousseau and Washington, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 37284/02

  LAFARGUE c. ROUMANIE

  La Cour estime que le lien de causalité entre la violation constatée et le dommage matériel allégué est par trop ténu pour justifier l'octroi d'un dédommagement à ce titre (voir Iglesias Gil et A.U.I. c. Espagne, no 56673/00, § 70, CEDH 2003-V).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 61984/17

  MAKHMUDOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Estonian Government concluded that the failure on the part the domestic authorities to undertake adequate and efficient steps to enforce the return order had helped the "abductor" parent to benefit from his illegal actions, which had amounted to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, ECHR 2000-I; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, ECHR 2003-V; V.P. v. Russia, no. 61362/12, 23 October 2014; and M.R. and L.R. v. Estonia (dec.), no. 13420/12, 15 May 2012).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 53565/13

  MITOVI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  This applies not only to cases dealing with the compulsory taking of children into public care and the implementation of care measures, but also to cases where contact and residence disputes concerning children arise between parents and/or other members of the children's family (see Mihailova v. Bulgaria, no. 35978/02, § 80, 12 January, 2006; Iglesias Gil and A.U.I. v. Spain, no. 56673/00, § 49, ECHR 2003-V; Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, § 127, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 14248/05

  TREPASHKIN v. RUSSIA (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 15.05.2003 - 4783/03

  PARADIS and OTHERS v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 35030/04

  KARADZIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 34630/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 35853/04

  BAJRAMI c. ALBANIE
• EGMR, 02.09.2003 - 56838/00

  GUICHARD contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 23.03.2023 - 44158/19

  OMELCHENKO v. UKRAINE and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 2040/06

  SBÂRNEA v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 20272/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 28383/20

  A AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.02.2023 - 16205/21

  G.K. v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 12.04.2011 - 21188/09

  GLUHAKOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 58919/09

  D. M. c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 64848/01

  KUIJPER v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 61680/10

  [ENG]