Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.D. AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Access to court) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 64791/10
• EGMR - 64791/10 (anhängig)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 31.08.2004 - 34407/02

  C. and D. and S. and OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  A restrictive or technical approach in this area is therefore to be avoided and the key consideration in such cases is that any serious issues concerning respect for a child's rights should be examined (see C. and D. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34407/02, 31 August 2004, and Tonchev v. Bulgaria, no. 18527/02, § 31, 19 November 2009).

  Nor, in principle, does it suffice for an applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law has been applied to his or her detriment (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, § 33, and C. and D. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34407/02, 31 August 2004).

• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  The notion of necessity implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and, in particular, that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, § 60, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 10249/03

  Rückwirkende Strafschärfung und Anerkennung des Meistbegünstigungsprinzips als …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  With a view, however, to helping the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009-..., and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012).

• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  Regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and the community, including other concerned third parties, and the State's margin of appreciation (see W. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, § 59, Series A no. 121, and Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  With a view, however, to helping the respondent State fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court may seek to indicate the type of individual and/or general measures that might be taken in order to put an end to the situation it has found to exist (see Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 194, ECHR 2004-V; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 148, ECHR 2009-..., and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 255, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  Maestri ./. Italien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach of the Convention or the Protocols thereto imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress as far as possible the effects (see Mentes and Others v. Turkey (Article 50), 24 July 1998, § 24, Reports 1998-IV; Scozzari and Giunta, cited above, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 46286/09

  MAGGIO AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  Having regard to the findings relating to Articles 6 and 8 above (see paragraphs 58 and 79 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 13 (see, among other authorities, Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 67, 31 May 2011, and Curmi v. Malta, no. 2243/10, § 64, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  Nor, in principle, does it suffice for an applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the Convention; it is necessary that the law has been applied to his or her detriment (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, § 33, and C. and D. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34407/02, 31 August 2004).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  The purpose of this rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  In particular the Court has applied the different safeguards provided by Article 6 in relation to proceedings regarding care orders and their equivalent numerous times (see for example, P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, § 100, ECHR 2002-VI, in respect of proceedings regarding a care order and a freeing for adoption order, particularly in relation to fair and effective access to a court; Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, §§ 86-91, regarding the fairness of proceedings requesting the termination of a taking into public care; and R. v. Finland, no. 34141/96, §§ 117-120, 30 May 2006, regarding the length of proceedings for the termination of public care).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 12.01.2006 - 26111/02
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 20287/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2584/11

  M. AND S. v. ITALY AND UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 34141/96

  R. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  H.K. v. FINLAND

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen