Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.S. v. POLAND

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 63777/09
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 63777/09
• EGMR - 63777/09 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 63777/09

  In this area the decisive issue is whether a fair balance was struck between the competing interests at stake - those of the child, the two parents and public order - 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 X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 95, 26 November 2013).

  The approach to be taken was lucidly explained by the Court (Section III) in the case of Maumousseau and Washington v. France (no. 39388/05, § 72, 6 December 2007):.

• EGMR, 20.03.2007 - 5410/03

  TYSIAC c. POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 63777/09

  Positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for rights guaranteed by this provision even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both the provision of a regulatory framework of adjudicatory and enforcement machinery protecting individuals" rights and the implementation, where appropriate, of specific measures (see, mutatis mutandis, Tysiac v. Poland, no. 5410/03, § 110, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 63777/09

  In fulfilling their task under Article 8, the domestic courts enjoy a margin of appreciation, which, however, remains subject to a European supervision whereby the Court reviews under the Convention the decisions that those authorities have taken in the exercise of that power (see, mutatis mutandis, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A; and also Maumousseau and Washington, cited above, § 62, and Neulinger and Shuruk, cited above, § 141).
• EGMR, 06.12.2005 - 14600/05

  ESKINAZI ET CHELOUCHE c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 63777/09

  Nevertheless, it 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 (see Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (dec.), no. 14600/05, ECHR 2005-XIII (extracts); Maumousseau and Washington, cited above, and Neulinger and Shuruk, cited above, § 139).".

• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 60281/11

  E.S. v. ROMANIA AND BULGARIA

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of child international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and on the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102 and 107, ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see notably Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 68, 6 December 2007; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000-I; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, § 38, 27 July 2006; Shaw v. Hungary, no. 6457/09, § 72, 26 July 2011; Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, §§ 54-62, 21 July 2015).

  On the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the primary interference with the applicant's right to respect for her family life may not be attributed to either of the respondent States but rather to the actions of the child's grandparents, third parties, who had retained the child in Bulgaria (see R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, §§ 56-57, 21 July 2015; López Guió v. Slovakia, no. 10280/12, § 85, 3 June 2014).

• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 1015/13

  BEKTAS c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour a établi dans un certain nombre d'affaires relatives à des enlèvements internationaux d'enfants sa pratique en ce qui concerne les griefs tirés de la violation du droit au respect de la vie familiale (voir, par exemple, Iosub Caras c. Roumanie, no 7198/04, §§ 32-40, 27 juillet 2006, Neulinger et Shuruk c. Suisse [GC], no 41615/07, §§ 131-140, CEDH 2010, X c. Lettonie [GC], no 27853/09, §§ 92-108, CEDH 2013, Blaga c. Roumanie, no 54443/10, §§ 64-91, 1er juillet 2014, G.S. c. Géorgie, no 2361/13, §§ 41-67, 21 juillet 2015, R.S. c. Pologne, no 63777/09, §§ 53-73, 21 juillet 2015, et K.J. c. Pologne, no 30813/14, §§ 51-75, 1er mars 2016).