Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JÍROVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JÍROVÁ AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 72931/10

  DROBINSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 66015/17

  In cases concerning foster parents and a child entrusted to them at a young age and having lived with them for periods of nineteen months or longer, the Court found that the resulting relationship amounted to family life, having regard to the existence of a close interpersonal bond, of a genuine concern on the foster parents' part for the child's well-being, and an emotional link between them (see Moretti and Benedetti v. Italy, no. 16318/07, §§ 51-52, 27 April 2010; Kopf and Liberda v. Austria, no. 1598/06, §§ 35 and 37, 17 January 2012, with further references; see also V.D. and Others v. Russia, no. 72931/10, §§ 90-93, 9 April 2019).

  The latter element cannot be satisfactorily assessed without determining, at the same time, whether the decision-making process, seen as a whole, was fair and provided the applicants with the requisite protection of their interests safeguarded by Article 8 (see V.D. and Others v. Russia, no. 72931/10, § 112, 9 April 2019).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 66015/17

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule of non-exhaustion is to afford the national authorities, primarily the courts, the opportunity to prevent or put right alleged violations of the Convention (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V, and Andrášik and Others v Slovakia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 18.09.2015 - 42219/07

  GHERGHINA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 66015/17

  The rule must, however, be applied with some degree of flexibility (compare, for example, Gherghina v. Romania (dec.), no. 42219/07, § 87, 9 July 2015), bearing in mind the actual availability and effectiveness of the domestic remedy in question and the fact that it is being applied in the context of a mechanism for the protection of fundamental rights.

• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 66015/17

  57984/00 and 6 others, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 04.10.2018 - 18568/12

  POJATINA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 66015/17

  The Court reiterates that in order to be lawful, the interference must have some basis in domestic law, and that that law must be adequately accessible and be formulated with sufficient precision as to enable a citizen to regulate his or her conduct, he or she being able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that a given action may entail (see Pojatina v. Croatia, no. 18568/12, § 65, 4 October 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 09.06.2022 - 42858/11

  ALIYEVLER v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 66015/17

  The Court has found, including in the context of Article 8 rights, that in certain specific circumstances, where some family members have appealed against the relevant domestic decisions and others have not, the complaints of the latter should not be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies where the appeal by the other family members had resulted in the essence of the dispute having been brought to the highest judicial authority (see Hasanali Aliyev and Others v. Azerbaijan, no. 42858/11, § 30, 9 June 2022).
• RG, 04.03.1918 - I 601/17

  1. Nach welchem Strafgesetz ist der Fahrkartenverkäufer einer staatlichen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 66015/17

  On 14 March 2017 the Constitutional Court dismissed a further constitutional complaint lodged by the foster parents' (No. III. ÚS 601/17), which had (i) challenged the court decisions by which their contact with the third applicant had been prohibited (see paragraphs 31 and 44 above), (ii) argued that the courts' decisions had been arbitrary, and (iii) argued that the Regional Court had disregarded several arguments presented in the foster parents' appeal, refused to examine certain evidence (on the grounds that it was superfluous (nadbytečné) and had erred in its assessment of that evidence which it had heard.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 59252/19

  VIN? KOVSKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Accordingly, Article 8 of the Convention can be interpreted as imposing on member States an obligation to examine on a case-by-case basis whether it is in the child's best interests to maintain contact with a person, whether biologically related or not, who has taken care of him or her for a sufficiently long period of time (see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 66, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Jírová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 66015/17, § 121, 13 April 2023).
• EGMR, 03.07.2025 - 26035/23

  M.K. v. LATVIA

  Rn. 88 The Court reiterates that its task is not to substitute itself for the domestic authorities in the exercise of their responsibilities regarding, in particular, contact issues, but rather to review, in the light of the Convention, the decisions taken by those authorities in the exercise of their discretionary powers (see Jírová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 66015/17, § 122, 13 April 2023, with further reference).
• EGMR - 38141/23 (anhängig)

  BALOG AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  (a) Did the domestic authorities perform a genuine balancing exercise between the interests of the third applicant and his foster family and were the removal and adoption orders justified by an overriding concern pertaining to the child's best interests (see, inter alia, Jírová and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 66015/17, §§ 120-22, 13 April 2023)?.