Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  USTINOVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  USTINOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  It had not been shown that she and her husband would not be able to continue their family life in Ukraine or that she would not receive appropriate treatment there (here the Government referred to N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  The Court reaffirms at the outset that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94).
• EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  As the Court has previously found, the relevant provisions of Russian law, including section 11(2) of the HIV Prevention Act, are of an imperative nature, leaving no room for an individualised assessment of the facts of a particular case (see Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 72, ECHR 2011).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  The issue of procedural safeguards against abuse under the Convention's "quality of law" requirement overlaps with similar issues analysed in the examination of the decision-making process by means of the proportionality test under Article 8 § 2 (see Gablishvili, cited above, § 48, and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, § 86, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  In both cases, the Court must ascertain that, in addition to an acknowledgement of the alleged violation of the Convention which is a required element for the determination of the applicant's victim status, the circumstances complained of by the applicant have ceased to exist and that the effects of the alleged violation have been redressed (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 97, ECHR 2007-I).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  It cannot therefore be claimed that domestic remedies have not been exhausted (see Vachkovi v. Bulgaria, no. 2747/02, § 58, 8 July 2010; Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47579/99, 1 February 2005; and, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, §§ 45-46, ECHR 1999-VI, see also Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, §§ 43 and 61, 26 June 2014, in which the Court found that the enforcement of an exclusion order would constitute a violation of Article 8 in respect of both the foreign applicant and his Russian wife).
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 1365/07

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  Domestic courts must undertake a meaningful and impartial scrutiny of all the relevant questions of fact and law to censure possible abuses by the authorities which affect rights under the Convention (see Gablishvili, cited above, § 57; Liu (no. 2), cited above, § 88; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1365/07, §§ 42-49, 24 April 2008; and Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 38-42, ECHR 2006-VII).
• EGMR, 04.12.2015 - 47143/06

  EGMR verurteilt Russland wegen geheimer Telefonüberwachung

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  Consequently, the law must indicate the scope of any such discretion conferred on the competent authorities and the manner of its exercise with sufficient clarity, having regard to the legitimate aim of the measure in question, in order to give the individual adequate protection against arbitrary interference (see Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], no. 47143/06, § 247, ECHR 2015, and Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 2747/02

  VACHKOVI v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  It cannot therefore be claimed that domestic remedies have not been exhausted (see Vachkovi v. Bulgaria, no. 2747/02, § 58, 8 July 2010; Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47579/99, 1 February 2005; and, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, §§ 45-46, ECHR 1999-VI, see also Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, §§ 43 and 61, 26 June 2014, in which the Court found that the enforcement of an exclusion order would constitute a violation of Article 8 in respect of both the foreign applicant and his Russian wife).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  The Court reiterates that the concept of "family life" includes relationships that arise from a lawful and genuine marriage (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, § 62) and that children born out of a relationship are ipso iure part of the "family" unit from the moment of their birth and by the very fact of it (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290).

• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  IVASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  The above considerations under the heading of "quality of law" may overlap with similar issues analysed under the heading of "necessary in a democratic society" (see Ustinova v. Russia, no. 7994/14, § 44, 8 November 2016).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 14697/18

  SHERSTOBITOVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that the thirteen-month period during which the applicant was unable to re-enter Russia (compare to Ustinova v. Russia, no. 7994/14, § 36, 8 November 2016) distinguishes the present case from those in which the applicants were effectively able to remain in the country for the entire duration of the proceedings and where no attempts were made to remove them or otherwise restrict them in the enjoyment of their family life (see Shvalia and Kostycheva v. Russia (dec.), nos.
• EGMR - 77427/14 (anhängig)

  MIKHAYLOV v. RUSSIA

  Was the applicant afforded sufficient procedural safeguards in the relevant proceedings (see, in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, § 84, ECHR 2000-XI; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 30, ECHR 2004-I; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-IX; Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 123, 20 June 2002; X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, §§ 220-222, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Ustinova v. Russia, no. 7994/14, § 44, 8 November 2016)? Reference is made, inter alia, to the absence from the file of expert and specialist reports adduced by the applicant and accepted by the first-instance court in the first case (judgment of 26 November 2013 as upheld on 6 June 2014).