Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMZI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 53586/08

  AKBULUT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 16558/07

  In this respect the Court has previously held that the fact that an applicant's wife had a stable job in her country did not make it exceptionally difficult for her to relocate to her husband's country (see Akbulut v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53586/08, § 22, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 03.10.2014 - 12738/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 16558/07

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 106, 3 October 2014).
• EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 50435/99

  Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Abschiebung, Duldung, unerlaubter Aufenthalt, Kinder

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 16558/07

  It is the Court's well-established case-law that, where this is the case, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-I, and Jeunesse, cited above, § 108).

• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39472/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 16558/07

  39472/07 and 39474/07, §§ 139-140, 19 January 2012; and X v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, § 96, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.1998 - 26102/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 16558/07

  In the domestic court's view, shared also by the Court, this situation, which was created at a time when he was excluded from Romanian territory, could not therefore be considered decisive (see Dalia v. France, no. 26102/95, § 54, 19 February 1998).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 78030/01

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 16558/07

  Under these conditions, relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Pini and Others v. Romania (nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, 22 June 2004), the High Court considered that the authorities" refusal to apply the newly adopted regulations in the applicant's case had been a proportionate decision falling within the ambit of the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 22050/04

  TAJDIRTI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 16558/07

  Furthermore, the Court notes that the exclusion order against the applicant was not of unlimited duration (see Tajdirti v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 22050/04, 11 October 2005; and, a contrario, Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, §§ 21 and 55, ECHR 2001-IX).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen