Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,1401
EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,1401)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.02.2013 - 58149/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,1401)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Februar 2013 - 58149/08 (https://dejure.org/2013,1401)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,1401) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AMIE AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8 MRK
    Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Article 5-1-f - Extradition) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 8 - Right to ...

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

  • EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

    AUAD v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
    It should, however, be pointed out that unlike that provision, Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention does not lay down maximum time-limits; the question whether the length of deportation proceedings could affect the lawfulness of detention under this provision thus depends solely on the particular circumstances of each case (see Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 128, 11 October 2011).

    The mere fact that he was granted refugee status eleven years ago, in 2001, cannot be regarded as sufficient proof in that respect (contrast Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 103, 11 October 2011, where the grant of humanitarian status had taken place less than two years before the Court's examination of the case), especially bearing in mind that the applicants did not provide any information about the reasons for which the State Refugee Agency decided to grant them refugee status (see paragraph 9 above).

  • EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 1365/07

    Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Ausweisung,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
    One of the requirements flowing from the notion that an interference be "in accordance with the law" is that domestic law must afford a degree of legal protection against arbitrary interference by the authorities, and that deportation measures affecting fundamental human rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings involving effective scrutiny of the reasons for them and review of the relevant evidence, if need be with appropriate procedural limitations on the use of classified information, and giving the person concerned a possibility to challenge the authorities" assertion that national security is at stake (see C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1365/07, §§ 39-40, 24 April 2008, with further references).

    46827/99 and 46951/99, § 82, ECHR 2005-I; Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, § 63, 8 June 2006; C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 1365/07, 13 March 2007; and Raza, cited above, § 82).

  • EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

    QUINN c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
    Conversely, the Court considers that the distress and frustration suffered by the first applicant as a result of his detention and the impossibility of obtaining speedy judicial review thereof cannot wholly be compensated by the finding of violation (see Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, § 64, Series A no. 311; Gavril Yosifov v. Bulgaria, no. 74012/01, § 72, 6 November 2008; and Raza, cited above, § 88).
  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
    That said, the Court considers that its finding regarding Article 8 of itself amounts to adequate just satisfaction for the purposes of Article 41 (see Beldjoudi, §§ 84 and 86, and Raza, both cited above, § 88, as well as, mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 126-27, Series A no. 161, and Chahal, cited above, § 158).
  • EuGH, 30.11.2009 - C-357/09

    Kadzoev - Visa, Asyl, Einwanderung und andere Politiken betreffend den freien

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
    In its judgment of 30 November 2009 (Saïd Shamilovich Kadzoev v. Direktsia "Migratsia" pri Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti, case C-357/09), the ECJ noted, inter alia, that the objective of Article 15 §§ 5 and 6 of the Directive was to guarantee in any event that detention for the purpose of removal does not exceed eighteen months.
  • EGMR, 26.03.1992 - 12083/86

    BELDJOUDI v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
    Therefore, the enforcement of the expulsion order would amount to an interference by a public authority with the exercise of the applicants" right to respect for their family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Raza, cited above, § 48, citing Beldjoudi v. France, 26 March 1992, § 67, Series A no. 234-A).
  • EGMR, 24.11.1994 - 17621/91

    KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 3)

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
    It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, even in those fields where the Convention "incorporates" the rules of that law: the national authorities are, in the nature of things, particularly qualified to settle the issues arising in this connection (see Kemmache v. France (no. 3), 24 November 1994, § 37, Series A no. 296-C).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.07.2015 - C-237/15

    Lanigan

    13 - Er nimmt insoweit auf das Urteil des EGMR vom 12. Februar 2013, Amie u. a./Bulgarien, Nr. 58149/08, §§ 80 bis 84, Bezug.
  • EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 28724/11

    ALOUACHE c. FRANCE

    La Cour rappelle que l'article 5 § 4 constitue une lex specialis de la détention (Reinprecht c. Autriche, no 67175/01, §§ 47-55, CEDH 2005-XII et Amie et autres c. Bulgarie, no 58149/08, § 109, 12 février 2013).
  • EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 30518/11

    ALIEV v. TURKEY

    The Court considers at the outset that the complaint under Article 13 falls to be examined solely under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, which provides a lex specialis in relation to the more general requirements of Article 13 (see Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 63, 12 February 2013).
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