Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.A. AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.A. AND OTHERS v. LATVIA

  Art. 1, Art. 13Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  The Court has, in particular, acknowledged the importance of the principle of non-refoulement (see, for example, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 286, and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 133, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

  In particular, the fact that a number of aliens are subject to similar decisions does not in itself lead to the conclusion that there is a collective expulsion, if each person concerned has been given the opportunity to put arguments against his or her expulsion to the competent authorities on an individual basis (see Khlaifia and Others, cited above, § 239; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, §§ 246 and 254, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Sultani v. France, no. 45223/05, § 81, ECHR 2007-IV (extracts); and Hirsi Jamaa and Others, cited above, § 184).

• EGMR, 23.07.2020 - 40503/17

  M.K. v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  The events leading to their departure for Belarus and attempts to enter Poland (in April, June and August-December 2017) and Lithuania (in April and May 2017) are described in M.A. and Others v. Lithuania (no. 59793/17, §§ 7-23, 11 December 2018) and M.K. and Others v. Poland (nos. 40503/17 and 2 others, §§ 27-43, 23 July 2020).

  They did not submit a copy of their asylum request (compare M.K. and Others v. Poland, nos. 40503/17 and 2 others, § 175, 23 July 2020, where the applicants submitted a copy of their request to the Court).

• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 59793/17

  M.A. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  The events leading to their departure for Belarus and attempts to enter Poland (in April, June and August-December 2017) and Lithuania (in April and May 2017) are described in M.A. and Others v. Lithuania (no. 59793/17, §§ 7-23, 11 December 2018) and M.K. and Others v. Poland (nos. 40503/17 and 2 others, §§ 27-43, 23 July 2020).

  Nor did they submit any photographs taken on the Latvian-Belarusian border (compare M.A. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 59793/17 §§ 110, 11 December 2018, where the applicants submitted a copy of their request and also a photograph taken by them on the border).

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  As regards the applicants' complaint under Article 13, the Court reiterates that a complaint may only be made under that provision in connection with a substantive claim which is "arguable" (see, among other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 2344/02

  DRITSAS ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  The Court has held that the applicant's own conduct is a relevant factor in assessing the protection to be afforded under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. According to the Court's well-established case-law, there is no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 if the lack of an individual expulsion decision can be attributed to the applicant's own conduct (see Khlaifia and Others, § 240, and Hirsi Jamaa and Others, § 184, both cited above; see also M.A. v. Cyprus, cited above, § 247; Berisha and Haljiti v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 18670/03, 16 June 2005; and Dritsas and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 2344/02, 1 February 2011).
• EGMR, 18.11.2021 - 15670/18

  Vorfall in Kroatien: Recht auf Leben an EU-Außengrenze verletzt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  15670/18 and 43115/18, § 268, 18 November 2021).
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 12625/17

  KHURRAM v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  If that is the case, the burden of proof should shift to the Government (see N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, § 85, 13 February 2020; and, more recently, Shahzad v. Hungary, no. 12625/17, § 35, 8 July 2021, and M.H. and Others v. Croatia, nos.
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 51246/17

  D.A. AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  It has reiterated that the expulsion of an alien by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if deported, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment breaching Article 3 in the destination country (see, as a recent example, D.A. and Others v. Poland, no. 51246/17, § 57, 8 July 2021).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 12552/12

  KEBE AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 25564/18

  Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that the applicants' account of events is corroborated by the available international material (compare Kebe and Others v. Ukraine, no. 12552/12, § 105, 12 January 2017).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2026 - 20538/24

  BUHIN v. CROATIA

  Rn. 54 Nevertheless, the Court can leave open the issue of whether the applicant should have exhausted this remedy within the meaning of Article 35 of the Convention, because the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons (see, for a similar approach, Baranska v. Poland (dec.), no. 46863/09, § 37, 16 December 2014; Olsoy v. Turkey (dec.), no. 75468/10, § 38, 26 May 2015; and M.A. and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 25564/18, § 44, 29 March 2022).
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 18787/17

  W.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  40503/17 and 2 others, §§ 166-73, 23 July 2020; M.A. and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 25564/18, §§ 53-54, 29 March 2022; and A.A. v. France and A.F. v. France, both cited above, which were mentioned by the first applicant's counsel during the validation hearing).
• EGMR, 21.01.2025 - 36024/17

  A.G. v. TURKEY

  Nevertheless, the Court considers it unnecessary to determine whether the applicant should be considered to have complied with the requirement to exhaust the domestic remedies since, in its view, the application is inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded for the reasons set out below (see, for a similar approach, Nakhmanovich v. Russia (dec.), no. 55669/00, 28 October 2004; Baranska v. Poland (dec.), no. 46863/09, 16 December 2014; Olsoy v. Turkey (dec.), no. 75468/10, 26 May 2015; and M.A. and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 25564/18, § 44, 29 March 2022).