Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,54121
EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,54121)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.11.2011 - 55120/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,54121)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. November 2011 - 55120/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,54121)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,54121) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02

    SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    His complaints under these provisions were related and should be dealt with in the same context but not solely under Article 3 (see Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 56, ECHR 2005-VI).

    The Court observes that the applicant's complaint raises issues under Article 2 of the Convention and that these concerned consequences of the expulsion for the applicant's life, health and welfare that were indissociable from any matters that fall to be considered under Article 3. In the Court's view, the complaint can more appropriately be dealt with under the latter provision (see NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 95, 17 July 2008; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 37, ECHR 2005-VI; D. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, § 59).

  • EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

    Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    v. the United Kingdom (no. 25904/07, 17 July 2008):.

    The Court observes that the applicant's complaint raises issues under Article 2 of the Convention and that these concerned consequences of the expulsion for the applicant's life, health and welfare that were indissociable from any matters that fall to be considered under Article 3. In the Court's view, the complaint can more appropriately be dealt with under the latter provision (see NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 95, 17 July 2008; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 37, ECHR 2005-VI; D. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, § 59).

  • EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

    KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    Having regard to the careful and thorough review carried out by the Board on the basis of material originating from reliable and objective sources (see, NA, cited above, §§ 118-122), the Court does not in principle consider it to be its role to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the Board (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    He also relied on Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 77631/01

    MILOSEVIC v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2002 - 57981/00

    SELVANAYAGAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    However, it has also on occasion found that where an applicant is advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of success, that appeal does not constitute an effective remedy (see Selvanayagam v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57981/00, 12 December 2002; see also H. v. the United Kingdom, cited above; and McFeeley and others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, Decisions and Reports (DR) 20, p. 44).
  • EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 39343/98

    KLEYN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    Equally, an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 121 et seq., ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 77363/01

    PELLEGRITI c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2005 - 6778/05

    MPP GOLUB c. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    The Court has consistently held that mere doubts as to the prospects of success of national remedies do not absolve an applicant from the obligation to exhaust those remedies (see, inter alia, Pellegrini v. Italy (dec.), no. 77363/01, 26 May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 6778/05, 18 October 2005; and Milosevic v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 77631/01, 19 March 2002).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2006 - 26499/02

    D. v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 55120/09
    According to the Court's case-law, a lack of financial means does not absolve an applicant from making some attempt to take legal proceedings (see D. v. Ireland (dec.) no. 26499/02, 27 June 2006, with reference to Cyprus v. Turkey, ibidem; see also as an example X v. the Federal Republic of Germany (dec.) no. 181/56, Yearbook 1, pp.
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

    Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse,

  • EKMR, 15.05.1980 - 8317/78

    McFEELEY et al. v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76

    VAN OOSTERWIJCK c. BELGIQUE

  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

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