Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 14492/03 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,63161) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PARAMSOTHY v. THE NETHERLANDS
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99
Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 14492/03
However, in exercising their right to expel such aliens Contracting States must have regard to Article 3 of the Convention which enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies (see, among others, Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 59, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 35373/97
A. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 14492/03
The Court reiterates its constant case-law according to which Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see, amongst many authorities, A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, § 110, ECHR 2002-X). - EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 14492/03
The Court has previously held that treatment which does not reach the severity of Article 3 treatment may nonetheless breach Article 8 in its private-life aspect where there are sufficiently adverse effects on physical and psychological integrity (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 March 1993, Series A no. 247-C, pp. 60-61, § 36, and Bensaid, cited above, § 46). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 10.11.2005 - 14492/03
However, in its examination of the question whether the applicant's expulsion to Sri Lanka would be contrary to Article 3, the focus has to be on the foreseeable consequences of that removal in light of the general circumstances in that country as well as the applicant's personal circumstances at the present time, given that the applicant has not yet been expelled (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 108, and H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 758, § 37).