Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.E. v. DENMARK

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Syria) No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life Respect for private life) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.E. v. Denmark

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.E. v. DENMARK

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  The Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94; Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  The mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of an unsettled situation in the requesting country does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3 (see, Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 111, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  Where the sources available to the Court describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I), except in the most extreme cases where the general situation of violence in the country of destination is of such intensity as to create a real risk that any removal to that country would necessarily violate Article 3 (see N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, §§ 115-16, 17 July 2008; Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 217, 28 June 2011; and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 14939/03

  Sergeï Zolotoukhine ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  The Court finds reason to point out in this respect that the principle of ne bis in idem does not by itself raise an issue under Article 3, and that even Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention is limited to double punishment within the same State (see, for example Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009 and Buzunis v. Greece (dec.), 22997/93, 2 December 1994).
• EKMR, 04.07.1995 - 22997/93

  BUZUNIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  The Court finds reason to point out in this respect that the principle of ne bis in idem does not by itself raise an issue under Article 3, and that even Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention is limited to double punishment within the same State (see, for example Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR 2009 and Buzunis v. Greece (dec.), 22997/93, 2 December 1994).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  The standards of Article 3 imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case (Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no.45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  Where the sources available to the Court describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I), except in the most extreme cases where the general situation of violence in the country of destination is of such intensity as to create a real risk that any removal to that country would necessarily violate Article 3 (see N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, §§ 115-16, 17 July 2008; Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 217, 28 June 2011; and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 29094/09

  A.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  It must be satisfied, though, that the assessment made by the authorities of the Contracting State is adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic materials as well as by materials originating from other reliable and objective sources such as, for instance, other Contracting or non-Contracting States, agencies of the United Nations and reputable non-governmental organisations (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 117, ECHR 2016; and M.E. v. Denmark, no. 58363/10, §§ 47-51 with further references, 8 July 2014).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 31572/19

  HUSSAIN v. DENMARK

  In any event, he could not legitimately have expected that his deportation order of 7 September 2017, the suspension of which was at stake in the appeal before the Supreme Court, would be revoked on the basis of a fait accompli due to the marriage (see, for example, M.E. v. Denmark, no. 58363/10, § 81, 8 July 2014 and Udeh v. Switzerland, no. 12020/09, § 50, 16 April 2013).