Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLGUN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  MITCHELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  Where this is the case, the removal - the Court would add: or exclusion - of the non-national (or non-lawfully resident) family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 68, Series A no. 94; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; Ajayi and Others, cited above; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).
• EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 43279/98

  SARUMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  Another important consideration is whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would from the outset be precarious (see Jerry Olajide Sarumi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43279/98, 26 January 1999; Andrey Sheabashov v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  AJAYI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).

 
• EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 44328/98

  SOLOMON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 50065/99

  SHEBASHOV contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  Another important consideration is whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would from the outset be precarious (see Jerry Olajide Sarumi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43279/98, 26 January 1999; Andrey Sheabashov v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  Where this is the case, the removal - the Court would add: or exclusion - of the non-national (or non-lawfully resident) family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 68, Series A no. 94; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; Ajayi and Others, cited above; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).