Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAFTAÏLOVA c. LETTONIE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b MRK
  Violation de l'art. 8 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAFTAILOVA v. LATVIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 34, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b MRK
  Violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.10.2001 - 59643/00
• EGMR, 21.10.2004 - 59643/00
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00
• EGMR, 07.12.2007 - 59643/00

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  Nor is there anything to show that she could legally claim Latvian citizenship under that country's laws, or that it was arbitrarily denied her (see, mutatis mutandis, Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, §§ 77-78, ECHR 2002-II).

  As to the existence of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 § 1, the Court observes that the deportation order issued in 1995 in respect of the applicant also related to her daughter; as both were enjoined to leave the country, the measure could not have had the effect of breaking up their life together (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 97, ECHR 2003-X).

  It is true that this very restrictive interpretation of the notion of family life is in line - in the specific sphere of the entry, residence and expulsion of non-nationals - with the case-law established in Slivenko (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 97, ECHR 2003-X).

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  The Court went on to conclude that ""respect" for a family life so understood implies an obligation for the State to act in a manner calculated to allow these ties to develop normally" (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 45; see also Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 221, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45582/99

  L. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  By way of example I would cite the L. judgment of 1 June 2004, in which the Court accepted that family life could also exist between a child and a parent who had never lived together, if other factors demonstrated that the relationship had sufficient constancy to create de facto family ties (see L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, § 36, ECHR 2004-IV)[1].

 
• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  The Court went on to conclude that ""respect" for a family life so understood implies an obligation for the State to act in a manner calculated to allow these ties to develop normally" (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 45; see also Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 221, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  Similarly, in relation to Article 34, the Court has always held that, as a general rule, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 142, ECHR 2000-IV; and Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 28.10.1999 - 40772/98

  PANCENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  However, the present application concerns the removal of a foreign national and her illegal residence within the national territory; in cases of this type, where the applicant's stay was regularised during the course of the Court's examination of the application, the Court has generally considered whether it should continue its examination under Article 34 of the Convention by reference precisely to the notion of "victim" (see, for example, Maaouia v. France (dec.), no. 39652/98, ECHR 1999-II; Pancenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999; Mikheyeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50029/99, 12 September 2002; Aristimuño Mendizabal v. France, (dec.), no. 51431/99, 21 June 2005; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005).
• EGMR, 30.11.1999 - 34374/97

  BAGHLI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  The Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee as such the right of an alien to enter or to reside in a particular country and that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, among many other authorities, Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 45, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 31679/96

  IGNACCOLO-ZENIDE v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  Furthermore, while the chief object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective respect for private or family life (see, for example, Gül v. Switzerland, judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, pp. 174-175, § 38; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania, no. 31679/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-I; and Mehemi (no. 2), cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  Similarly, in relation to Article 34, the Court has always held that, as a general rule, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 142, ECHR 2000-IV; and Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 33933/96

  GUISSET c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 59643/00

  Similarly, in relation to Article 34, the Court has always held that, as a general rule, a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the alleged breach of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, p. 846, § 36; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 142, ECHR 2000-IV; and Guisset v. France, no. 33933/96, § 66, ECHR 2000-IX).
• EGMR, 12.09.2002 - 50029/99

  MIKHEYEVA contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 13.02.2003 - 49636/99

  CHEVROL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 51431/99

  ARISTIMUNO MENDIZABAL c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

• VGH Baden-Württemberg, 13.12.2010 - 11 S 2359/10

  Zum Anspruch auf Erteilung eines humanitären Aufenthaltstitels nach § 25 Abs 5 …

  Hierbei kommt es zunächst auf den jeweiligen Grad der "Verwurzelung" an; je stärker der Betroffene im Aufenthaltsstaat integriert ist, desto schwerer müssen die öffentlichen Interessen wiegen (vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 22.06.2006 - 59643/00 - ).
• VGH Baden-Württemberg, 05.02.2009 - 11 S 3244/08

  Aufenthalt "verwurzelter" Ausländer; Achtung des Familienlebens; ledige …

  Dabei kommt es zunächst auf den jeweiligen Grad der "Verwurzelung" an; je stärker der Betroffene im Aufenthaltsstaat integriert ist, desto schwerer müssen die öffentlichen Interessen wiegen (vgl. auch EGMR, Urteil vom 22.06.2006 - Nr. 59643/00 - "Kaftailova").
• VGH Baden-Württemberg, 03.11.2008 - 11 S 2235/08

  Aufenthaltsrecht für langjährig geduldete Ashkali aus dem Kosovo

  Dabei kommt es zunächst auf den jeweiligen Grad der "Verwurzelung" an; je stärker der Betroffene im Aufenthaltsstaat integriert ist, desto schwerer müssen die öffentlichen Interessen wiegen (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 22.06.2006 - Nr. 59643/00 - "Kaftailova").
• VGH Baden-Württemberg, 25.10.2007 - 11 S 2091/07

  Ausländerrecht; einstweiliger Rechtsschutz; Schutzbereich des Art 8 MRK; Türke

  Dabei kommt es zunächst auf den jeweiligen Grad der "Verwurzelung" an; je stärker der Betroffene im Aufenthaltsstaat integriert ist, desto schwerer müssen die öffentlichen Interessen wiegen (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 22.06.2006 - 59643/00 - "Kaftailova").
• VG Minden, 06.06.2023 - 2 K 2129/20
  vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 9. Oktober 2003 - Nr. 48321/99 (Slivenko/Lettland) -, EuGRZ 2006, 560 Rn. 97 und vom 22. Juni 2006 - Nr. 59643/00 (Kaftailova/Lettland) -, Rn. 63.

  vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 9. Oktober 2003 - Nr. 48321/99 (Slivenko/Lettland) -, EuGRZ 2006, 560, Rn. 97; vom 22. Juni 2006 - Nr. 59643/00 (Abdulaziz/Vereinigtes Königreich) -, NJW 1986 3007 Rn. 68 und vom 19. Februar 1996 - 23218/94 (Gül/Schweiz) -, Rn. 38.