Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JOESOEBOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  ABDOLKHANI ET KARIMNIA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 44719/06

  In such a case, Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see, most recent, Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 72, ECHR 2009...).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 29094/09

  A.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Pursuant to the strict separation under the provisions of the Aliens Act 2000 between an asylum application and a regular application for a residence permit for another purpose than asylum, arguments based on Article 8 of the Convention cannot be entertained in asylum proceedings but should be raised in, for instance, proceedings on a regular application for a residence permit (see Mohammed Hassan v. the Netherlands and Italy and 9 other applications (dec.), no. 40524/10, § 13, 27 August 2013; J. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 33342/11, § 9, 18 October 2011; and Joesoebov v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 44719/06, § 27, 2 November 2010) or in proceedings concerning the imposition of an exclusion order (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII, and Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, no. 28770/05, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 46856/07

  M.R.A. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  To the extent that the first applicant complained that the refusal to grant him a residence permit and his consequential removal to Afghanistan were contrary to his rights under Article 8 and under Article 13 taken together with Article 8, the Court observes - given the strict separation under the provisions of the Netherlands Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) between an asylum application and a regular application for a residence permit for another purpose than asylum - that arguments based on Article 8 of the Convention cannot be entertained in asylum proceedings but should be raised in, for instance, proceedings on a regular application for a residence permit (see Mohammed Hassan v. the Netherlands and Italy and 9 other applications (dec.), no. 40524/10, § 13, 27 August 2013; J. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 33342/11, § 9, 18 October 2011; and Joesoebov v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 44719/06, § 27, 2 November 2010) or in proceedings concerning the imposition of an exclusion order (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII, and Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, no. 28770/05, 3 November 2011).