Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOMA v. DENMARK

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GOMA v. DENMARK

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).

  The Court considers it established that there has been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8, that the expulsion order and the re-entry ban were "in accordance with the law" and that they pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime (see also, for example, Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 61, 1 December 2016).

• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).

  Nor can it be overlooked that the applicant demonstrated a lack of willingness to comply with Danish law, despite the fact that a suspended expulsion order had been issued against him in May 2018 (see also, among other authorities, Munir Johana v. Denmark, no. 56803/18, § 58, 12 January 2021, and Levakovic v. Denmark, no. 7841/14, § 44, 23 October 2018).

• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 40601/05

  Rechtssache M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  One of the elements relied on in this respect has been whether the crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34 13 February 2001; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 59, 27 October 2005; and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the persons in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).

 
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

  Ausweisung, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  One of the elements relied on in this respect has been whether the crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34 13 February 2001; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 59, 27 October 2005; and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the persons in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 7841/14

  LEVAKOVIC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  Nor can it be overlooked that the applicant demonstrated a lack of willingness to comply with Danish law, despite the fact that a suspended expulsion order had been issued against him in May 2018 (see also, among other authorities, Munir Johana v. Denmark, no. 56803/18, § 58, 12 January 2021, and Levakovic v. Denmark, no. 7841/14, § 44, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  BALOGUN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  One of the elements relied on in this respect has been whether the crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34 13 February 2001; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 59, 27 October 2005; and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the persons in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 41643/19

  ABDI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  The crime was of such a nature that it could have had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, § 30, 30 November 2021, and Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, § 33, 14 September 2021, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  AVCI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  The crime was of such a nature that it could have had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, § 30, 30 November 2021, and Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, § 33, 14 September 2021, and the cases cited therein).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 51301/22

  WANGTHAN v. DENMARK

  In the Court's opinion, such strong reasons are absent in the present case (see also, mutatis mutandis, Al-Masudi v. Denmark, no. 35740/21, § 35, 5 September 2023, and Goma v. Denmark, no. 18646/22, § 34, 5 September 2023).