Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BALOGUN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8 MRK
  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Nigeria) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Balogun v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  The Tribunal took into account the case of Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII, in finding that, on balance, and having due regard to the public interest, the applicant's deportation was proportionate.

  When applying the principle of proportionality, in order to decide whether the impugned (expulsion) measure is "necessary in a democratic society", the various criteria set out in Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC] 18 October 2006, no 46410/99, at §§ 54-58) and Maslov v. Austria ([GC] 23 June 2008, no 1638/03, at § 71) all exert a different gravitational pull such that it is often difficult to decide on which side the scales should tip.

• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 31519/96

  KWAKYE-NTI ET DUFIE contre les PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  However, the Court has previously held that there will be no family life between parents and adult children or between adult siblings unless they can demonstrate additional elements of dependence (Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 97, ECHR 2003 X; Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07

  MIAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  The Court recalls that, as Article 8 protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's social identity, it must be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants such as the applicant and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8. Indeed it will be a rare case where a settled migrant will be unable to demonstrate that his or her deportation would interfere with his or her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 17, 27 April 2010).

 
• EKMR, 26.10.1995 - 28419/95

  KHARSA v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  This applies regardless of whether the risk of harm emanates from deliberate acts of State authorities or third parties; from a naturally occurring illness (see N., cited above, § 29); or even from the applicant himself (see Kharsa v. Sweden, no. 28419/95, Commission's decision of 26 October 1995, Decisions and Reports (DR)).
• EKMR, 07.12.1995 - 28285/95

  NIKOVIC v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  The Court recalls that in previous cases involving a risk of suicide, it has found not only that the high threshold for Article 3 applies to the same extent as it does in other types of cases, but that appropriate and adequate steps taken by the relevant authorities to mitigate a risk of suicide will weigh against a conclusion that the high threshold of Article 3 has been reached (see Nikovic v. Sweden, no. 28285/95, Commission decision of 7 December 1995, (DR)).
• EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

  BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  The Court further recalls that it has reserved to itself sufficient flexibility to find a violation of Article 3 even where the treatment in question arises not from the intentional acts of public authorities or non-State actors in the receiving State, but from the applicant's own physical or mental health (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 34, ECHR 2001-I).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 51301/22

  WANGTHAN v. DENMARK

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence 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, 09.04.2024 - 2116/21

  NGUYEN v. DENMARK

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence 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, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  SARAC v. DENMARK

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence 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, 25.04.2017 - 41697/12

  KRASNIQI v. AUSTRIA

  The applicant had committed all of his criminal offences as an adult, which added to their severity (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 24, 27 April 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012).

  The relevant criteria to be applied, in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society, was set out in, inter alia, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012; and Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012.

• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 32739/21

  PAYAM v. DENMARK

  In the present case, the Court is convinced that the applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, inter alia, Al-Masudi v. Denmark, cited above, § 34; Avci v. Denmark, cited above, § 37, Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 53, 10 April 2012; and Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 54157/21

  KURLAND v. DENMARK

  In the present case, the Court is convinced that the applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, inter alia, Al-Masudi v. Denmark, cited above, § 34; Avci v. Denmark, cited above, § 37; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 53, 10 April 2012; and Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 11093/22

  DAVUD KIBAR v. DENMARK

  In the present case, the Court is convinced that the applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, inter alia, Al-Masudi v. Denmark, cited above, § 34; Avci v. Denmark, cited above, § 37; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 53, 10 April 2012; and Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 21783/22

  CAKMAK v. DENMARK

  In the present case, the Court is convinced that the applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, inter alia, Al-Masudi v. Denmark, cited above, § 34; Avci v. Denmark, cited above, § 37; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 53, 10 April 2012; and Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 60766/19

  FATEH v. DENMARK

  In the present case, the Court is convinced that the applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, inter alia, Al-Masudi v. Denmark, cited above, § 34; Avci v. Denmark, cited above, § 37; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 53, 10 April 2012; and Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76550/13

  SABER ET BOUGHASSAL c. ESPAGNE

  Il invoque à cet égard l'arrêt Balogun c. Royaume-Uni, no 60286/09, §§ 43-46 et 47-53, 10 avril 2012.
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 7841/14

  LEVAKOVIC v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 61126/19

  BELGACEM v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 31434/21

  SHARIFI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 44810/20

  NOORZAE v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  GOMA v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 35740/21

  AL-MASUDI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 26781/19

  LARABA v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 31572/19

  HUSSAIN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 27801/19

  JOHANSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 25593/14

  ASSEM HASSAN ALI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33809/15

  ALAM v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 16588/20

  AHMED v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 74411/16

  SAID ABDUL SALAM MUBARAK v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  BAJRAMI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 42517/15

  YURDAER v. DENMARK