Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NWOSU v. DENMARK

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 50359/99

  The right to asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its Protocols (cf. for example Vilvarajah and others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, § 102).
• EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 12083/86

  BELDJOUDI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 50359/99

  However, their decisions in this domain must, in so far as they may interfere with a right protected under § 1 of Article 8, be necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A, p. 27, § 74; Nasri v. France, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 320-B, p. 25, § 41; Boughanemi v. France, 24 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, pp. 609-610, § 41; and C. v. Belgium, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 924, § 31).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19465/92

  NASRI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 50359/99

  However, their decisions in this domain must, in so far as they may interfere with a right protected under § 1 of Article 8, be necessary in a democratic society, that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see, among other authorities, the following judgments: Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A, p. 27, § 74; Nasri v. France, 13 July 1995, Series A no. 320-B, p. 25, § 41; Boughanemi v. France, 24 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 II, pp. 609-610, § 41; and C. v. Belgium, 7 August 1996, Reports 1996-III, p. 924, § 31).

• EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  LAGERGREN v. DENMARK

  In the present case, the Court's task thus consists in ascertaining whether the Danish courts struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the applicant's right to respect for his family life with his children, on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder and crime, on the other (see Jakupovic v. Austria, no. 36757/97, § 26, 6 February 2003; Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, § 34, 11 July 2002; and Nwosu v. Denmark (dec.), no. 50359/99, 10 July 2001).
• EGMR, 05.09.2002 - 22813/02

  MUSA contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  En outre, la Cour examinera la gravité des difficultés que risque de connaître la requérante dans le pays d'origine de son époux, bien que le simple fait qu'une personne risque de se heurter à des difficultés en accompagnant son conjoint ne saurait en soi exclure une expulsion (voir Boultif c. Suisse, n° 54273/00, ECHR 2001-..., § 48, Nwosu c. Danmark (déc.), n° 50359/99, 10 juillet 2001, non publiée, et Amrollahi précité, § 35).