CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2019
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-194545
- Date
- 20 juin 2019
- Publication
- 20 juin 2019
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } Communicated on 20 June 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 52350/18 Yelena Vasilyevna MARO against Russia lodged on 19 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the refusal by the domestic authorities to allow the applicant to bury her mother, in accordance with the latter’s wishes, in the burial plot with the applicant’s father. It raises an issue under Article   8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention on account of the refusal by the domestic authorities to allow her to bury her mother in the burial plot with her father?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2? In particular: (a)     Has the relevant domestic law been clear and foreseeable in its application? More specifically, does the domestic law contain a definition of a “closed cemetery”? Does the domestic law provide for a possibility for burials in a “closed cemetery”? If so, what are the conditions for burials in a “closed cemetery”? Have such conditions, if any, been met in the applicant’s case? (b)     When was the Nakhodka City Cemetery No. 1 given the status of a “closed cemetery”? What were the reasons for closing the Nakhodka City Cemetery No. 1? Has it been closed for reason of relocation and re ‑ cultivation of its territory? Have there been any burials in the Nakhodka City Cemetery No.   1 since then? When was the most recent burial in the Nakhodka City Cemetery No.   1?Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 20 juin 2019
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-194545
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel