Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,50549
EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,50549)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.10.2011 - 10611/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,50549)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Oktober 2011 - 10611/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,50549)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,50549) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

Papierfundstellen

  • NJOZ 2012, 952
 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (272)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

    Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    These standards imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case (Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II).

    Moreover, Article 3 does not, as such, preclude Contracting States from placing reliance on the existence of an internal flight alternative in their assessment of an individual's claim that a return to his or her country of origin would expose him or her to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by that provision (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 98, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V and Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2001-II).

  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    The Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity to prevent or put right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 43844/98

    Dubliner Übereinkommen, Dublinverfahren, Großbritannien, Sri Lanka, sichere

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    However, the Court has previously held that the indirect removal of an alien to an intermediary country does not affect the responsibility of the expelling Contracting State to ensure that he or she is not, as a result of its decision to expel, exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III).
  • EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

    BOULTIF v. SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    "57. Even if Article 8 of the Convention does not therefore contain an absolute right for any category of alien not to be expelled, the Court's case-law amply demonstrates that there are circumstances where the expulsion of an alien will give rise to a violation of that provision (see, for example, the judgments in... and Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX; see also Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, 11 July 2002; Yılmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, 17 April 2003; and Keles v. Germany, 32231/02, 27 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 11.07.2002 - 56811/00

    AMROLLAHI v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    "57. Even if Article 8 of the Convention does not therefore contain an absolute right for any category of alien not to be expelled, the Court's case-law amply demonstrates that there are circumstances where the expulsion of an alien will give rise to a violation of that provision (see, for example, the judgments in... and Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX; see also Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, 11 July 2002; Yılmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, 17 April 2003; and Keles v. Germany, 32231/02, 27 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 17.04.2003 - 52853/99

    D (A), Türken, Ausweisung, Straftäter, Besonderer Ausweisungsschutz, Unbefristete

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    "57. Even if Article 8 of the Convention does not therefore contain an absolute right for any category of alien not to be expelled, the Court's case-law amply demonstrates that there are circumstances where the expulsion of an alien will give rise to a violation of that provision (see, for example, the judgments in... and Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX; see also Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, 11 July 2002; Yılmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, 17 April 2003; and Keles v. Germany, 32231/02, 27 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 7702/04

    SALKIC and OTHERS v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    In any event, the fact that the applicant's circumstances would be less favourable than those he enjoys in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 38, ECHR 2001-I; Salkic and others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7702/04, 29 June 2004; and Al-Zawatia v. Sweden (dec.) no. 50068/08, 22 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

    Ausweisung, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    "57. Even if Article 8 of the Convention does not therefore contain an absolute right for any category of alien not to be expelled, the Court's case-law amply demonstrates that there are circumstances where the expulsion of an alien will give rise to a violation of that provision (see, for example, the judgments in... and Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX; see also Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, 11 July 2002; Yılmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, 17 April 2003; and Keles v. Germany, 32231/02, 27 October 2005).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

    Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    The Court also reiterates its finding in for example Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands ( no. 1948/04, § 141, ECHR 2007-I (extracts), that while the Court by no means wishes to detract from the acute pertinence of socio-economic and humanitarian considerations to the issue of forced returns of rejected asylum seekers to a particular part of their country of origin, such considerations do not necessarily have a bearing, and certainly not a decisive one, on the question of whether the persons concerned would face a real risk of ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention in those areas.
  • EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 50068/08

    AL-ZAWATIA v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.10.2011 - 10611/09
    In any event, the fact that the applicant's circumstances would be less favourable than those he enjoys in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 38, ECHR 2001-I; Salkic and others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7702/04, 29 June 2004; and Al-Zawatia v. Sweden (dec.) no. 50068/08, 22 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

    KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 29192/95

    Ausländer, Aufenthaltserlaubnis, Ausweisung, Familienangehörige, Kinder, Schutz

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht