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)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  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, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  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, 17.09.2009 - 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, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  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, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  DIAMANTE AND PELLICCIONI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  The Court has repeatedly dealt with cases concerning access, custody and care orders, and while it often considers such cases as falling under Article 8 of the Convention, including its "procedural" aspect (see, for example, H.K. v. Finland, no. 36065/97, 26 September 2006, Scozzari and Giunta, cited above; and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 151, 27 September 2011), it does not preclude that such cases be examined also under Article 6 (see, for example, B. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121, in respect of access rights; H. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120, in respect of access rights and adoption; and M. and S. v Italy and the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 2584/11, 13 March 2012, in respect of a taking into public care order).
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 2584/11

  M. AND S. v. ITALY AND UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  The Court has repeatedly dealt with cases concerning access, custody and care orders, and while it often considers such cases as falling under Article 8 of the Convention, including its "procedural" aspect (see, for example, H.K. v. Finland, no. 36065/97, 26 September 2006, Scozzari and Giunta, cited above; and Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, § 151, 27 September 2011), it does not preclude that such cases be examined also under Article 6 (see, for example, B. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 121, in respect of access rights; H. v. the United Kingdom, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 120, in respect of access rights and adoption; and M. and S. v Italy and the United Kingdom, (dec.), no. 2584/11, 13 March 2012, in respect of a taking into public care order).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 of the Convention and, whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138-39, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 30.05.2006 - 34141/96

  R. v. FINLAND

  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, 12.01.2006 - 26111/02

  MIZZI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 64791/10

  On that account alone, it is "civil" in character (see, mutatis mutandis, Mizzi v. Malta, no. 26111/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.09.2006 - 36065/97

  H.K. v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 23805/94

  BELLET c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 46544/99

  Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 20287/10

  SALIBA AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland