Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IMAMOVIC v. SWEDEN

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  AJAYI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 57633/10

  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; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; and Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 44328/98

  SOLOMON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 57633/10

  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; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; and Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 50435/99

  Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Abschiebung, Duldung, unerlaubter Aufenthalt, Kinder

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 57633/10

  Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State's obligations to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest (see Gül v. Switzerland, judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, pp. 174-75, § 38, and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-I).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 57633/10

  The Court reiterates that the Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see, inter alia, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94; and Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).

• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 34474/20

  J.N. v. SWEDEN

  As to the alleged risks faced during the journey to the Philippines, the medical certificates submitted do not address any risks related to travelling and do not indicate that the applicant's transfer, in itself, would give rise to a real risk of his being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Furthermore, the enforcement procedure in Sweden allows the implementation of a deportation order only if the authority responsible for the deportation considers that the individual's medical condition so permits and that authority is required to ensure that appropriate measures are taken with regard to the individual's particular needs (see, for example, Al-Zawatia v. Sweden (dec.), no. 50068/08, § 58, 22 June 2010; Karim v. Sweden (dec.), no. 24171/05, 4 July 2006; and Imamovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 57633/10, 13 November 2012).