Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2020,17526
EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18 (https://dejure.org/2020,17526)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.03.2020 - 3599/18 (https://dejure.org/2020,17526)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. März 2020 - 3599/18 (https://dejure.org/2020,17526)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2020,17526) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

  • lto.de (Kurzinformation)

    Die EMRK gilt nicht für Visaanträge in Drittstaaten

  • Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration (Kurzinformation und Auszüge)

    Keine Zuständigkeit für aus dem Ausland beantragtes humanitäres Visum, um nach der Einreise Asylantrag zu stellen

  • lto.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 23.04.2019)

    EGMR verhandelt über Anspruch auf Visumerteilung: Gibt es ein Recht auf Humanität?

Besprechungen u.ä.

  • verfassungsblog.de (Aufsatz mit Bezug zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung)

    Der Staat gegen seine Richter: Eindrücke von der EGMR-Verhandlung im Fall M.N.

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

  • EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 1398/03

    MARKOVIC ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    81. Lastly, relying on the cases of Abdul Wahab Khan v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 11987/11, 28 January 2014) and Markovic and Others v. Italy ([GC], no. 1398/03, ECHR 2006 XIV), the Government argued that the fact that the applicants had had access to Belgian administrative and judicial proceedings in order to have their visa requests examined and to challenge the decisions taken had no influence on Belgium's jurisdiction over them.

    Thus, with regard to civil proceedings for damages brought by the applicants before the Italian courts under national law in respect of the deaths of their relatives as a result of air strikes carried out by the NATO alliance against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Court held, in spite of the extraterritorial nature of the events at the origin of the action, that those proceedings fell within the jurisdiction of Italy, which was accordingly required to secure, in those proceedings, respect for the rights protected by Article 6 of the Convention (see Markovic and Others v. Italy, (dec.), no. 1398/03, 12 June 2003, and Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], cited above, §§ 49-55).

  • EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 21034/05

    SANDU AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    21034/05 and 7 others, §§ 36-38, 17 July 2018).
  • EKMR, 15.12.1977 - 7547/76

    X c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    106. As the Court reiterated in the Al-Skeini and Others judgment (cited above, § 134), a State Party's jurisdiction may arise from the actions or omissions of its diplomatic or consular officials when, in their official capacity, they exercise abroad their authority in respect of that State's nationals or their property (see X. v. Germany, cited above; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 7547/76, Commission decision of 15 December 1977, Decisions and Reports 12, p. 73.; and S. v. Germany, no. 10686/83,.
  • EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99

    GENTILHOMME, SCHAFF-BENHADJI ET ZEROUKI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    104. Thus, the Commission and subsequently the Court concluded that a State was exercising its jurisdiction extraterritorially when, in an area outside its national territory, it exercised public powers such as authority and responsibility in respect of the maintenance of security (see X. and Y. v. Switzerland, cited above; Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, §§ 91-98, Series A no. 240; Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki v. France, nos. 48205/99 and 2 others, § 20, 14 May 2002; Al-Skeini and Others, cited above, §§ 143-150; and Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27021/08, §§ 75-96, ECHR 2011).
  • EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

    N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    124. Such an extension of the Convention's scope of application would also have the effect of negating the wellestablished principle of public international law, recognised by the Court, according to which the States Parties, subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, among many other authorities, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 30, ECHR 2008, and Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, § 125, 21 November 2019).
  • EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

    HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    Equally, extraterritorial jurisdiction has been recognised as a result of situations in which the officials of a State operating outside its territory, through control over buildings, aircraft or ships in which individuals were held, exercised power and physical control over those persons (see Issa and Others v. Turkey, no. 31821/96, §§ 72-82, 16 November 2004; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61498/08, §§ 86-89, 30 June 2009; Medvedyev and Others, cited above, §§ 62-67; Hirsi Jamaa, cited above, §§ 76-82; and Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, §§ 75-80, ECHR 2014).
  • EKMR, 05.10.1984 - 10686/83

    S. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    106. As the Court reiterated in the Al-Skeini and Others judgment (cited above, § 134), a State Party's jurisdiction may arise from the actions or omissions of its diplomatic or consular officials when, in their official capacity, they exercise abroad their authority in respect of that State's nationals or their property (see X. v. Germany, cited above; X v. the United Kingdom, no. 7547/76, Commission decision of 15 December 1977, Decisions and Reports 12, p. 73.; and S. v. Germany, no. 10686/83,.
  • EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

    Transnistrien

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    The obligation to secure the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention in such an area derives from the fact of such control, whether it be exercised directly, through the Contracting State's own armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration (for a summary of the caselaw on these situations, see Al-Skeini and Others, cited above, §§ 138-140 and 142; for more recent applications of this caselaw, see Catan and Others, cited above, §§ 121-122; Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, § 186, ECHR 2015; Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, §§ 110-111, 23 February 2016; and Sandu and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    84. The applicants then drew attention to the caselaw on removal, established since the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment (7 July 1989, Series A no. 161), which had found that a State Party to the Convention could be held responsible for the extraterritorial consequences of decisions taken by it in the event of a risk of torture or illtreatment, or of failures, attributable to it, to take measures with a view to avoiding or preventing exposure to such risks.
  • EKMR, 25.09.1965 - 1611/62

    X against THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2020 - 3599/18
    The "function" exercised by the diplomatic or consular agents in the context of performing acts which fell within the competence of embassies and consulates abroad, such as issuing passports to their nationals, had been recognised as forming grounds for the exercise of jurisdiction (the thirdparty interveners referred to X v. Germany, no. 1611/62, Commission decision of 25 September 1965, Yearbook 8, pp. 158 and 169).
  • EKMR, 14.10.1992 - 17392/90

    M. c. DANEMARK

  • EKMR, 14.07.1977 - 7289/75

    X et Y c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 11987/11

    ABDUL WAHAB KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

    LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  • EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

    V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark,

  • EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

    ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 25.01.2024 - C-753/22

    Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Effet d'une décision d'octroi du statut de réfugié) -

    45 Vgl. EGMR, Entscheidung vom 5. März 2020, M.N. u. a./Belgien (Nr. 3599/18, CE:ECHR:2020:0505DEC000359918, §§ 98 bis 102), in der es um die Frage ging, ob die Beantragung humanitärer Visa durch eine syrische Familie in der belgischen Botschaft in Beirut (Libanon) die Menschenrechtsverpflichtungen des beklagten Staats auslöste.
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