Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  B. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EKMR, 03.05.1983 - 9369/81

  X. and Y. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  The Commission has also considered that an issue could arise under this provision where exclusion from a country impinged on private life (see No. 9369/81, Dec. 3.5.83, D.R. 32 pp. 220, 221).

  The Commission has held that such relationships involve private life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) and that, although lawful deportation will inevitably have repercussions on such relationships, it cannot in principle be regarded as an interference with the right to respect for private life given the state's right to impose immigration controls and limits (see No. 9369/81, Dec. 3.5.83, D.R. 32 p. 221 and No. 14753/89, Dec. 9.10.89, to be published in D.R.).

• EKMR, 06.07.1982 - 9285/81

  X., Y. et Z. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  Whilst the Convention does not guarantee a right, as such, to enter and remain in a particular country, the Commission has constantly held that the exclusion of a person from a country where members of his close family reside may raise an issue under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (see, e.g. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219, No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205).

  The Commission refers in this respect to its case-law which highlights the close connection between the policy of immigration control and considerations pertaining to public order (see No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205).

• EKMR, 09.10.1989 - 14753/89

  C. and L.M. v. UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  The Commission has held that such relationships involve private life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) and that, although lawful deportation will inevitably have repercussions on such relationships, it cannot in principle be regarded as an interference with the right to respect for private life given the state's right to impose immigration controls and limits (see No. 9369/81, Dec. 3.5.83, D.R. 32 p. 221 and No. 14753/89, Dec. 9.10.89, to be published in D.R.).

  The Commission has previously held that no discrimination exists contrary to this provision where the Immigration Rules give priority and better guarantees to established couples living in a family relationship as opposed to other established relationships such as lesbian or homosexual relationships (see No. 14753/89, loc. cit.).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant formed his relationship with Mr. R. at a time when he was aware that he had no right to remain in the United Kingdom (see, mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 34 para. 68).
• EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

  DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  He refers in this context to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Dudgeon (judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45) and Norris (judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142) where the criminalisation of homosexual behaviour was held to constitute a breach of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  He refers in this context to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Dudgeon (judgment of 22 October 1981, Series A no. 45) and Norris (judgment of 26 October 1988, Series A no. 142) where the criminalisation of homosexual behaviour was held to constitute a breach of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  The Commission recalls that an issue can only arise under this provision in respect of an "arguable" claim that there has been a breach of one of the provisions of the Convention (see Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 39, para. 71).
• EKMR, 19.05.1977 - 7816/77

  X. et Y. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  Whilst the Convention does not guarantee a right, as such, to enter and remain in a particular country, the Commission has constantly held that the exclusion of a person from a country where members of his close family reside may raise an issue under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (see, e.g. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219, No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205).
• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 9088/80

  X. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  Whilst the Convention does not guarantee a right, as such, to enter and remain in a particular country, the Commission has constantly held that the exclusion of a person from a country where members of his close family reside may raise an issue under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (see, e.g. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9 p. 219, No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29 p. 205).
• EKMR, 14.05.1986 - 11716/85

  S. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EKMR, 10.02.1990 - 16106/90

  The Commission therefore accepts that the difference in treatment between the applicant and somebody in the same position whose partner had been of the opposite sex can be objectively and reasonably justified." (No. 11716/85, Dec. 14.5.86, to be published in D.R. 47).

• EuGH, 17.02.1998 - C-249/96

  EINE DISKRIMINIERUNG AUFGRUND DER SEXUELLEN ORIENTIERUNG FÄLLT GEGENWÄRTIG NICHT …

  Die Europäische Kommission für Menschenrechte hält daran fest, daß dauerhafte homosexuelle Beziehungen trotz der heutigen Entwicklung der Mentalitäten gegenüber der Homosexualität nicht unter das durch Artikel 8 der Konvention geschützte Recht auf Achtung des Familienlebens fallen (…vgl. u. a. Entscheidungen Nr. 9369/81 vom 3. Mai 1983, X. und Y./Vereinigtes Königreich, Decisions and Reports [D. R.] 32, S. 220, Nr. 11716/85 vom 14. Mai 1986, S./Vereinigtes Königreich, D. R. 47, S. 274, Paragraph 2, und Nr. 15666/89 vom 19. Mai 1992, Kerkhoven und Hinke/Niederlande, nicht veröffentlicht, Paragraph 1) und daß nationale Bestimmungen, die zum Schutz der Familie Verheirateten und solchen Personen verschiedenen Geschlechts, die wie Mann und Frau zusammenleben, eine günstigere Behandlung zuteil werden lassen als solchen Personen des gleichen Geschlechts, die dauerhafte Beziehungen unterhalten, nicht gegen Artikel 14 der Konvention verstoßen, der insbesondere die Diskriminierungen aufgrund des Geschlechts verbietet (vgl. Entscheidungen S./Vereinigtes Königreich, a. a. O., Paragraph 7, Nr. 14753/89 vom 9. Oktober 1989, C. und L. M./Vereinigtes Königreich, nicht veröffentlicht, Paragraph 2, und Nr. 16106/90 vom 10. Februar 1990, B./Vereinigtes Königreich, D. R. 64, S. 278, Paragraph 2).