Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ADZIC v. CROATIA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ADZIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 7233/04

  GOBEC v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 73, ECHR 2002-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 67, 15 December 2005; and Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, § 105, 3 October 2013), considers in the circumstances of the present case that the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention must be regarded as absorbed by his complaint under Article 8 thereof.
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  Even though the primary object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by public authorities, there are, in addition, positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for family life (see, among other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31, and Gluhakovic, cited above, § 55).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  OLSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  The Court reiterates that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company constitutes a fundamental element of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Olsson v. Sweden (no. 1), 24 March 1988, § 59, Series A no. 130, and Gluhakovic v. Croatia, no. 21188/09, § 54, 12 April 2011).

 
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  What is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all such necessary steps to facilitate reunion as can reasonably be demanded in the special circumstances of each case (see, for example, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23 September 1994, § 58, Series A no. 299-A).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 36812/97

  SYLVESTER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  In such cases, the adequacy of a measure is also to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation as they require urgent handling given that the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for the relations between the children and the parent who does not live with them (see, for example, Sylvester v. Austria, nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, § 60, 24 April 2003).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  The Court further reiterates that in child abduction cases the positive obligations which Article 8 of the Convention imposes on the Contracting States with respect to reuniting parents with their children must be interpreted in the light of the Hague Convention (see, for example, Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 95, ECHR 2000-I, and Karadzic, cited above, § 54).
• EGMR, 15.12.2005 - 35030/04

  KARADZIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 73, ECHR 2002-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 67, 15 December 2005; and Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, § 105, 3 October 2013), considers in the circumstances of the present case that the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention must be regarded as absorbed by his complaint under Article 8 thereof.
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 22643/14

  The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, and having regard to its case-law on the subject (see, for example, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 73, ECHR 2002-I; Karadzic v. Croatia, no. 35030/04, § 67, 15 December 2005; and Gobec v. Slovenia, no. 7233/04, § 105, 3 October 2013), considers in the circumstances of the present case that the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention must be regarded as absorbed by his complaint under Article 8 thereof.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.01.2023 - C-638/22

  Rzecznik Praw Dziecka u.a. (Suspension de la décision de retour)

  Vgl. dazu EGMR, Urteil vom 12. März 2015, Ad?¾ic/Kroatien (CE:ECHR:2015:0312JUD002264314, § 97), und EGMR, Urteil vom 14. Januar 2020, Rinau/Litauen (CE:ECHR:2020:0114JUD001092609, § 194).
• EGMR, 17.03.2022 - 80606/17

  MOGA v. POLAND

  The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of children and 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, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013), as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see 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, § 70, 26 July 2011; Ad?¾ic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, 54 and 55, 21 July 2015).
• EGMR, 19.07.2016 - 2171/14

  G.N. v. POLAND

  The general principles on the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of 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 (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see 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; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).

 
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 30813/14

  K.J. v. POLAND

  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 (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-102, 107 ECHR 2013) and also in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for return of children under the Hague Convention (see 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; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 28.01.2021 - 12354/19

  SATANOVSKA AND RODGERS v. UKRAINE

  The Court's assessment 30. The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's judgment in the case of X v. Latvia ([GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, ECHR 2013), as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see 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, § 70, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 14.12.2021 - 49960/19

  CRETOI c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Les principes relatifs à la question du rapport entre la Convention et la Convention de La Haye, la portée de l'examen par la Cour des requêtes visant au non-retour de l'enfant, l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant et les obligations procédurales des États en la matière sont énoncés dans l'arrêt X c. Lettonie (précité, §§ 93-108), ainsi que dans un certain nombre d'autres arrêts (voir, parmi d'autres, Monory c. Roumanie et Hongrie, no 71099/01, §§ 72 et 73, 5 avril 2005; Iosub Caras c. Roumanie, no 7198/04, §§ 34 et 38, 27 juillet 2006; Ad?¾ic c. Croatie, no 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 mars 2015; et M.V., précité, § 74).
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 16202/14

  M.V. v. POLAND

  The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013) as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see 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, § 70, 26 July 2011; Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015; and R.S. v. Poland, no. 63777/09, 54 and 55, 21 July 2015).
• 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).
• EGMR, 09.05.2023 - 28383/20

  A ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Les principes généraux concernant l'exigence d'un examen urgent des affaires relevant de la Convention de La Haye, où le passage du temps peut avoir des conséquences irrémédiables sur les relations entre les enfants et un parent qui ne vit pas avec eux, ont été résumés, entre autres, dans les affaires suivantes X c. Lettonie ([GC], no 27853/09, §§ 93-108, CEDH 2013) ; Ad?¾ic c. Croatie (no 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 mars 2015) ; et R.S. c. Pologne (no 63777/09, §§ 54 et 55, 21 juillet 2015).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 21267/14

  VILENCHIK v. UKRAINE

  The general principles regarding the relationship between the Convention and the Hague Convention, the scope of the Court's examination of international child abduction applications, the best interests of the child and the procedural obligations of the States, are laid down in the Court's Grand Chamber judgment in the case of X v. Latvia (see X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§ 93-108, 107 ECHR 2013) as well as in a number of other judgments concerning proceedings for the return of children under the Hague Convention (see 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, § 70, 26 July 2011; and Adzic v. Croatia, no. 22643/14, §§ 93-95, 12 March 2015).
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 4993/15

  B.S. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 49437/14

  AKDAG v. THE NETHERLANDS