Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO c. DANEMARK
Violation de l'article 14+8 - Interdiction de la discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect de la vie familiale;Article 8 - Droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale);Préjudice moral - réparation (Article 41 - Préjudice ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO v. DENMARK
Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO v. DENMARK - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 38590/10
Papierfundstellen
- NVwZ 2017, 1681
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (11)
- EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00
D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
The Court has established in its case-law that only differences in treatment based on an identifiable characteristic, or "status", are capable of amounting to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14. Moreover, in order for an issue to arise under Article 14 there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in analogous, or relevantly similar, situations (see for example, Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, ECHR 2010; Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, § 60, ECHR 2008; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-IV; and Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, 7 December 1976, § 56, Series A no. 23).The leading case on indirect discrimination is D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic ([GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV), and the principles established in that judgment have been applied and confirmed in S.A.S. v. France ([GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014).
See D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 176, ECHR 2007-IV, and Timishev v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
The Chamber recalled that a similar claim had been submitted in the case of Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom case (28 May 1985, §§ 84-86, Series A no. 94), and dismissed.Thus, the Court has recognised that "there are in general persuasive social reasons for giving special treatment to those who have a special link with a country" (see Ponomaryov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 5335/05, 18 September 2007, concerning preferential treatment of "aliens of Bulgarian origin and Bulgarians living abroad") and, in particular, "to those whose link with a country stems from birth within it" (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 88, Series A no. 94, concerning reunification of spouses).
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 88, Series A no. 94.
- EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 28883/95
McKERR CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI ET 7 AUTRES AFFAIRES
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
The Court has accepted in previous cases that a difference in treatment may take the form of disproportionately prejudicial effects of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, discriminates against a group (see, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001).The Court has accepted in previous cases that a difference in treatment may take the form of disproportionately prejudicial effects of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, discriminates against a group of persons (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001).
- EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
This is only the case, however, if such policy or measure has no "objective and reasonable" justification (see, among other authorities, S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 161, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and D.H. and Others, cited above, §§ 175 and 184-185).The leading case on indirect discrimination is D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic ([GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007-IV), and the principles established in that judgment have been applied and confirmed in S.A.S. v. France ([GC], no. 43835/11, ECHR 2014).
- EuGH, 25.07.2008 - C-127/08
DER NICHT DIE UNIONSBÜRGERSCHAFT BESITZENDE EHEGATTE EINES UNIONSBÜRGERS DARF …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
Moreover, on 25 July 2008 the Court of Justice of the European Union (the "CJEU") adopted a judgment in Metock and others v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (C-127/08), and clarified the conditions and limits applicable to the right of residence of spouses of EU citizens.Finally, during the proceedings before the Grand Chamber, the Government submitted that since the first applicant had moved to Sweden on 15 November 2003, by virtue of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member States, and in the light of the judgment of 25 July 2008 of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Metock v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (C-127/08) (see paragraph 59 above), "it would be correct to assume that the applicants and their child would have a prospect of success in applying from Sweden for a residence permit in Denmark.".
- EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
As formulated in Golder v. the United Kingdom (21 February 1975, § 35, Series A no. 18), the Convention should be interpreted in the light of general principles of law and especially "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" (Article 38 para. 1 (c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice). - EGMR, 08.04.2014 - 31045/10
THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
Furthermore, the Court should be careful not to convert non-binding, policy-based recommendations into legally binding obligations (see also National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, §§ 92-99, ECHR 2014). - EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 15018/11
HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
The Convention must be interpreted taking into account not only other human rights treaties, but also hard and soft law instruments related to it and especially the system of human rights protection of the Council of Europe within which it fits, as Article 31 § 3 (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides (for a recent, laudable example, see Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos. 15018/11 and 61199/12, § 204, ECHR 2014, (extracts)). - EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
43577/98 and 43579/98, § 145, ECHR 2005-VII). - EGMR, 22.01.2008 - 43546/02
E.B. v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
- BVerwG, 08.12.2022 - 1 C 8.21
Voraussetzungen für den Familiennachzug zu subsidiär Schutzberechtigten
Sowohl nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu Art. 3 GG (BVerfG, Beschlüsse vom 15. Dezember 1959 - 1 BvL 10/55 - BVerfGE 10, 234 und vom 3. Oktober 1989 - 1 BvL 78/86 u. a. - BVerfGE 81, 1 ;… vgl. auch Nußberger, in: Sachs, Grundgesetz, 9. Aufl. 2021, Art. 3 Rn. 14 ff.) als auch des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 14 EMRK (EGMR , Urteil vom 24. Mai 2016 - Nr. 38590/10, Biao v. Denmark - Rn. 90) kommt es nach dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit maßgeblich auf die Gewichtung der durch die Ungleichbehandlung beeinträchtigten Freiheitsrechte an. - BVerwG, 08.12.2022 - 1 C 56.20
Voraussetzungen für den Familiennachzug zu subsidiär Schutzberechtigten
Sowohl nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu Art. 3 GG (BVerfG, Beschlüsse vom 15. Dezember 1959 - 1 BvL 10/55 - BVerfGE 10, 234 und vom 3. Oktober 1989 - 1 BvL 78/86 u. a. - BVerfGE 81, 1 ;… vgl. auch Nußberger, in: Sachs, Grundgesetz, 9. Aufl. 2021, Art. 3 Rn. 14 ff.) als auch des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 14 EMRK (EGMR , Urteil vom 24. Mai 2016 - Nr. 38590/10, Biao v. Denmark - Rn. 90) kommt es nach dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit maßgeblich auf die Gewichtung der durch die Ungleichbehandlung beeinträchtigten Freiheitsrechte an. - BVerwG, 08.12.2022 - 1 C 59.20
Voraussetzungen für den Familiennachzug zu subsidiär Schutzberechtigten
Sowohl nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu Art. 3 GG (BVerfG, Beschlüsse vom 15. Dezember 1959 - 1 BvL 10/55 - BVerfGE 10, 234 und vom 3. Oktober 1989 - 1 BvL 78/86 u. a. - BVerfGE 81, 1 ;… vgl. auch Nußberger, in: Sachs, Grundgesetz, 9. Aufl. 2021, Art. 3 Rn. 14 ff.) als auch des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 14 EMRK (EGMR , Urteil vom 24. Mai 2016 - Nr. 38590/10, Biao v. Denmark - Rn. 90) kommt es nach dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit maßgeblich auf die Gewichtung der durch die Ungleichbehandlung beeinträchtigten Freiheitsrechte an.
- BVerwG, 08.12.2022 - 1 C 31.21
Voraussetzungen für den Familiennachzug zu subsidiär Schutzberechtigten
Sowohl nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zu Art. 3 GG (BVerfG, Beschlüsse vom 15. Dezember 1959 - 1 BvL 10/55 - BVerfGE 10, 234 und vom 3. Oktober 1989 - 1 BvL 78/86 u. a. - BVerfGE 81, 1 ;… vgl. auch Nußberger, in: Sachs, Grundgesetz, 9. Aufl. 2021, Art. 3 Rn. 14 ff.) als auch des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte zu Art. 14 EMRK (EGMR , Urteil vom 24. Mai 2016 - Nr. 38590/10, Biao v. Denmark - Rn. 90) kommt es nach dem Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit maßgeblich auf die Gewichtung der durch die Ungleichbehandlung beeinträchtigten Freiheitsrechte an. - OVG Bremen, 21.10.2021 - 2 B 326/21
Ausschluss aus einem Bewerbungsverfahren zum Schutz der Funktionsfähigkeit der …
Eine ganz oder wesentlich mit der ethnischen Herkunft begründete Ungleichbehandlung ist eine Form der Rassendiskriminierung und deshalb in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft nicht zu rechtfertigen ( EGMR , Urt. v. 24.05.2016 - 38590/10 - Biao ./. Dänemark, NVwZ 2017, 1681 [1682 - Rn. 94]). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 01.12.2016 - C-668/15
Jyske Finans - Richtlinie 2000/43/EG - Art. 2 - Gleichbehandlung ohne Unterschied …
28 - EGMR, 24. Mai 2016, Biao/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2016:0524JUD003859010, vgl. §§ 112 und 114).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO v. DENMARK
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8 MRK
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO v. DENMARK - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Biao v. Denmark
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BIAO v. DENMARK
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Biao v. Denmark
[01.04.2015]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 38590/10
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (24)
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court reiterates that a State is entitled, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94, Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).They also referred to, inter alia, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia ([GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom (no. 22341/09, 6 November 2012) which in their view were more relevant to the present case than Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, Series A no. 94) notably because the latter authority was old, and because the aim of the legislation had been different.
In paragraph 94, the Court has quoted Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, § 88, Series A no. 94), where special treatment, unlike the situation in the present case, was not based on the length of citizenship but stemmed from birth within the country, from citizenship versus non-citizenship or from long-time residence versus residence that is clearly not long-term, namely to the effect that:.
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00
TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
55762/00 and 55974/00, 13 December 2005, § 56; and Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, 18 February 2009, § 87, where the Court did not pay enough heed even to such an otherwise decisive factor as that the justification for the difference in treatment had stemmed, ultimately, from the history of the respondent State's occupation by a foreign power). - EGMR, 16.09.1996 - 17371/90
GAYGUSUZ v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
Very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference of treatment based exclusively on the ground of ethnic or national origin as compatible with the Convention (see Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, 16 September 1996, § 42) and justify such discrimination (see Koua Poirrez v. France, no. 40892/98, 30 September 2003, § 46; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
GUZZARDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
In following the wording used in Taxquet, which was intended to justify the fact that the Court in that case did not examine the institution of the jury as such, the majority have omitted a consideration which has been present ever since the Court formulated its individualised approach in Guzzardi v. Italy (6 November 1980, Series A no. 39). - EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98
RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT DER ZEUGEN JEHOVAS AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court has consistently held that its task is not to review domestic law and practice in abstracto or to express a view as to the compatibility of the provisions of legislation with the Convention, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied or in which they affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities, in the Article 14 context, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008). - EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00
Andrejeva ./. Lettland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
55762/00 and 55974/00, 13 December 2005, § 56; and Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, 18 February 2009, § 87, where the Court did not pay enough heed even to such an otherwise decisive factor as that the justification for the difference in treatment had stemmed, ultimately, from the history of the respondent State's occupation by a foreign power). - EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07
BAH c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court accepts that in this respect the applicants enjoyed "other status" for the purpose of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 46-48; Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
"The Court has also accepted that a general policy or measure which is apparently neutral but has disproportionately prejudicial effects on persons or groups of persons who, as for instance in the present case, are identifiable only on the basis of an ethnic criterion, may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group (see, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001, and Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58461/00, 6 January 2005; and Sampanis, cited above, § 68), unless that measure is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate, necessary and proportionate. - EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10
KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court accepts that in this respect the applicants enjoyed "other status" for the purpose of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 46-48; Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011). - EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
Furthermore, discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99
CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 5056/10
Emre ./. Schweiz
- EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 36812/97
SYLVESTER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08
DONOHOE v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 40083/07
SAIDOUN c. GRECE
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 50435/99
Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Abschiebung, Duldung, unerlaubter Aufenthalt, Kinder
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 43279/98
SARUMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 44328/98
SOLOMON v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10
ANTWI AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98
MITCHELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 50065/99
SHEBASHOV contre la LETTONIE
- EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95
AJAYI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- VGH Bayern, 04.03.2019 - 10 ZB 18.2195
Verlängerung einer Aufenthaltserlaubnis aus humanitären Gründen
Auch der EGMR betont insbesondere in seiner neuen Rechtsprechung das Interesse der Steuerung und Regulierung der Einwanderung (…EGMR, U.v. 8.11.2016 - Nr. 56971/10 - Rn. 44; U.v. 25.3.2014 - Nr. 38590/10 - Rn. 53;… U.v. 30.7.2013 - Nr. 948/12 - Rn. 49;… s. auch Hailbronner, Ausländerrecht, Stand November 2018, § 25 Rn. 185, 200). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.03.2015 - C-153/14
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwältin Kokott kann die Familienzusammenführung …
Vgl. auch jüngst das Urteil des EGMR vom 25. März 2014, Biao/Dänemark (Nr. 38590/10), § 53. - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.05.2015 - C-218/14
Singh u.a. - Richtlinie 2004/38/EG - Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 12 und Art. 13 …
5 - Vgl. dazu die Nrn. 63 bis 67 meiner Schlussanträge vom 8. September 2005 in der Rechtssache Parlament/Rat (C-540/03, EU:C:2005:517) und die Urteile des EGMR vom 2. August 2001 in der Rechtssache Boultif/Schweiz (Nr. 54273/00), Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2001-IX, § 39, und vom 25. März 2014, Biao/Dänemark (Nr. 38590/10), § 53.
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 38590/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO AGAINST DENMARK
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO CONTRE LE DANEMARK
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 38590/10