Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PENCHEVI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage Pecuniary damage Just satisfaction) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Penchevi v. Bulgaria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PENCHEVI v. BULGARIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 24069/03

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  24069/03, 197/04, 6201/06 and 10464/07, § 213, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 33158/96

  LAINO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  Having regard to its findings in paragraph 75 above, the Court considers that these complaints must be declared admissible, but that it is not necessary to examine them on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I; Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 16 December 1997, § 50, Reports 1997-VIII; Ruianu v. Romania, no. 34647/97, § 75, 17 June 2003; Öcalan v. Turkey (no. 2), nos.
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  The Court recalls in that connection that it has to confine itself, as far as possible, to an examination of the concrete case before it, as its task is not to review national law in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which it was applied gave rise to a Convention violation (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 54, Series A no. 130).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  Undoubtedly, consideration of what is in the best interest of the child is of crucial importance (see Diamante and Pelliccioni, cited above, § 176, 27 September 2011; Zawadka, cited above, § 54; Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 36998/02

  EFSTATHIOU ET AUTRES c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  In these circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the highest domestic court's analysis was not sufficiently thorough and that, instead, it followed what could be described as an overly formalistic approach (see, mutatis mutandis, in the context of Article 6, Koskina and Others v. Greece, no. 2602/06, § 24, 21 February 2008; Vasilakis v. Greece, no. 25145/05, § 32, 17 January 2008; Efstathiou and Others v. Greece, no. 36998/02, § 33, 27 July 2006; Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-IX; Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 25145/05

  VASILAKIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  In these circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the highest domestic court's analysis was not sufficiently thorough and that, instead, it followed what could be described as an overly formalistic approach (see, mutatis mutandis, in the context of Article 6, Koskina and Others v. Greece, no. 2602/06, § 24, 21 February 2008; Vasilakis v. Greece, no. 25145/05, § 32, 17 January 2008; Efstathiou and Others v. Greece, no. 36998/02, § 33, 27 July 2006; Beles and Others v. the Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-IX; Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 71099/01

  MONORY v. ROMANIA AND HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  The Court first notes that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of family life and is protected under Article 8 of the Convention (see Monory v. Romania and Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005; Iosub Caras v. Romania, no. 7198/04, §§ 28-29, 27 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  Regard must be had to the fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests at stake, those of the child and of the two parents, within the margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters (see Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 62, 6 December 2007; W. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 59; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 24.02.1995 - 16424/90

  McMICHAEL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  According to the Court's well established case-law, domestic measures hindering such mutual enjoyment of each other's company amount to an interference with the right to respect for family life (see, inter alia, W. v. the United Kingdom judgment, p. 27, § 59; McMichael v. the United Kingdom, 24 February 1995, § 86, Series A no. 307-B; Hoffmann v. Austria, judgment of 23 June 1993, Series A no. 255-C, p. 58, § 29; Palau-Martinez v. France, no. 4927/01, § 30, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 77818/12

  In that connection the Court is required to verify whether there has been an acknowledgment, at least in substance, by the authorities of a violation, between April 2010 and December 2012, of the rights protected by the Convention and whether appropriate and sufficient redress has been provided (see, inter alia, Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004).
• EGMR, 12.11.2002 - 46129/99

  ZVOLSKÝ AND ZVOLSKÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 21.02.2008 - 2602/06

  KOSKINA ET AUTRES c. GRECE
• EGMR, 23.06.1993 - 12875/87

  HOFFMANN c. AUTRICHE

• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 8361/21

  SIMONA MIHAELA DOBRE v. ROMANIA

  INTERNATIONAL LAW MATERIAL 37. The relevant provisions of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child ("the CRC") and the European Union Charter - as well as UN material relating to the concept of what is in a child's best interests - are described in Penchevi v. Bulgaria, no. 77818/12, §§ 32-39, 10 February 2015.

  Moreover, the possibility for her to continue to live together with her son, as decided by the courts (see paragraphs 7, 26 and 34 above) also falls within the sphere of family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Penchevi v. Bulgaria, no. 77818/12, §§ 59, 10 February 2015).

• EGMR, 12.10.2023 - 48280/21

  LANDINI c. ITALIE

  Les principes généraux applicables sont bien établis dans la jurisprudence de la Cour et ont été récemment largement exposés dans les arrêts Penchevi c. Bulgarie (no 77818/12, 10 février 2015), Terna (précité), R.B. et M. c. Italie, (no 41382/19, 22 avril 2021) et Improta c. Italie (no 66396/14, 4 mai 2017).
• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 63543/19

  YAZDI v. AUSTRIA

  Contrary to the case of Pisano (cited above), the circumstances complained of had not been resolved by the fact that J. moved back to live with the applicant in September 2022, considering that the effects of the alleged violation he had suffered between June 2019 and September 2022 had not been redressed (ibid., § 42; Penchevi v. Bulgaria, no. 77818/12, § 49, 10 February 2015).