Finnish authorities' refusal to register a name chosen by the applicant's for their child violated art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant's were awarded 2,000 euros in respect of non pecuniary damage.
|
It was held that UK legislation requiring the consent of both donors for the retention of stored frozen embryos was within the UK's margin of appreciation and therefore not a violation of the Applicant's Article 8 rights.
|
An applicant was awarded €8,000 in non-pecuniary damages after the ECHR held that the Austrian courts had failed to deal diligently with proceedings for custody of her eldest child. The proceedings had remained pending for more than five years before the child was removed from the jurisdiction.
|
The European Court of Human Rights awarded an applicant €15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary loss by where a valid custody judgment in their favour was not enforced for approximately two years. As no satisfactory explanation had been put forward to justify those delays it was held there had been a violation of art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
|
The ECHR awarded €5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to an Applicant after holding that his rights under art 8 of the Convention had been infringed by his child had been taken into public care without his consent and without an order under the relevant domestic legislation. Once orders under the relevant domestic legislation had been made his rights under art 8 were no longer infringed. Restrictions on his contact with the child were also held to have infringed art 8, as the applicant had ...
|
The ECHR held that there had been a breach in the Applicant’s Art 8 rights where reunification of a Father and son had not been seen as a serious option. It was stated that the guiding principle of care orders was that they should be regarded as a temporary measure to be discontinued as soon as circumstances permitted.
|
The UK requirement of a father's consent for the continued storage and/or implantation of fertilised eggs had not exceeded the UK’s margin of appreciation and was not in violation of Human Rights Act 1989 Sch. 1 Part I Art. 2, Art. 8 or Art. 14.
|
Refusal of child benefits to applicants who each had the benefit of limited residence which had been regulary renewed where domestic law was such that only aliens with aresidence permit or provisional residence permit were entitled to such benefits, violated the applicant's rights under art 14 together with art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights..
|
Article 12 of the Convention was held to be violated by the prohibition under the Marriage Act 1949 of a marriage between an ex-father-in-law and daughter-in-law after their previous relationships endthrough divorce. Such a marriage was forbidden unless both their former partners had died or unless a private act of parliament allowed it.
|
Interference with a prisoner’s correspondence with his mother and refusal to allow visits from his wife and child will contravene article 8 of the Convention unless it was in accordance with the law. Domestic law has to indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion on public authorities to ensure that individuals were afforded the protection entitled under the rule of law in a democratic country.
|
| 1 2 |