Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,55112
EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,55112)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13.12.2012 - 22689/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,55112)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 13. Dezember 2012 - 22689/07 (https://dejure.org/2012,55112)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55112) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE SOUZA RIBEIRO v. FRANCE

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-2 - Interference Prescribed by law Article 8-1 - Respect for family life Respect for ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE SOUZA RIBEIRO c. FRANCE

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    Exception préliminaire jointe au fond et rejetée (Article 34 - Victime) Violation de l'article 13+8 - Droit à un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif) (Article 8-2 - Ingérence Prévue par la loi Article 8-1 - Respect de la vie familiale Respect de la vie ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    DE SOUZA RIBEIRO v. FRANCE - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    [DEU] Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-2 - Interference Prescribed by law Article 8-1 - Respect for family life Respect for ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    Furthermore, he argued, the requirement for a remedy to have suspensive effect in connection with a complaint under Article 8 would be consistent with the general trend in the case-law set by the Conka v. Belgium judgment (no. 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I) and would logically enhance the subsidiarity of the Court's role.

    The exercise of the remedy should have a suspensive effect when the returnee has an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to treatment contrary to his or her human rights as set out in Guideline 2.1." In its Commentary to the Guidelines, the Committee explained that "[t]he requirement according to which the exercise of the remedy should have the effect of suspending the execution of the removal order when the returnee has an arguable claim that he or she is likely to be subjected to treatment contrary to his or her human rights as set out in Guideline 2.1 is based on the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Conka v. Belgium (no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I)".

  • EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

    Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    Nevertheless, its powers and the procedural guarantees which it affords are relevant in determining whether the remedy before it is effective (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 67, Series A no. 28).

    The Convention must be read as a whole, and interpreted in such a way as to promote internal consistency and harmony between its various provisions (see Klass and Others v. Germany, 6 September 1978, § 68, Series A no. 28, and Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos.

  • EGMR, 02.02.2012 - 9152/09

    Abschiebung, Asylanerkennung, erniedrigende Behandlung, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    In this regard the Court considers it necessary to reiterate that where immigration cases are concerned, such as that of the applicant, its sole concern, in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, is to examine the effectiveness of the domestic procedures and ensure that they respect human rights (see, mutatis mutandis, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 286-87, ECHR 2011, and I.M. v. France, no. 9152/09, § 136, 2 February 2012).
     
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 39652/98

    MAAOUIA v. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    As I mentioned in my concurring opinion appended to Hirsi Jamma and Others, the arguments exposed by the majority in Maaouia v. France ([GC], no. 39652/98, ECHR 2000-X) do not convince me (for further criticism of the Maaouia case-law and the Court's "narrow positions on migration-related cases", see "The European Court of Human Rights and the Rights of Migrants Affected by Deportation Policies, Procedures and Jurisprudence", International Federation for Human Rights & Migrants Rights International, 2011, pp. 29-30).
  • EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

    KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    Where a complaint concerns allegations that the person's expulsion would expose him to a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the importance the Court attaches to that provision and given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the risk of torture or ill-treatment alleged materialised, the effectiveness of the remedy for the purposes of Article 13 requires imperatively that the complaint be subject to close scrutiny by a national authority (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 448, ECHR 2005-III), independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Jabari, cited above, § 50), and reasonable promptness (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    See the groundbreaking judgments of 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, 01.02.2000 - 34406/97

    MAZUREK c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    In Mazurek v. France (no. 34406/97, § 49, ECHR 2000-II), the Court invoked the Convention on the Legal Status of Children born out of Wedlock, which at that time had been ratified by only a third of the member States of the Council of Europe, but not by France, as evidence of the "great importance" attached by member States to the equal legal treatment of children born out of wedlock.
  • EGMR, 11.06.2013 - 55597/09

    NUNEZ CONTRE LA NORVÈGE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    See, for instance, Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, ECHR 2010, and Nunez v. Norway, no. 55597/09, 28 June 2011.
  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    The Court further reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention does not go so far as to require any particular form of remedy, Contracting States being afforded a margin of discretion in this regard (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 122, Series A no. 215, and, among other authorities, G.H.H. and Others v. Turkey, no. 43258/98, § 36, ECHR 2000-VIII).
  • EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 13444/04

    GLOR AGAINST SWITZERLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 22689/07
    In Glor v. Switzerland (no. 13444/04, § 53, ECHR 2009), the Court referred to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as the basis of "a European and worldwide consensus on the need to protect people with disabilities from discriminatory treatment", despite the fact that the relevant facts took place before the adoption of the Convention by the General Assembly and the respondent State had not ratified the Convention at the time of the Court's judgment.
  • EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

    Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  • EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

    LEANDER c. SUÈDE

     
  • EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 60125/11

    V.M. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

    Or, dans le cas où les étrangers ne font pas valoir de façon vraisemblable des conséquences potentiellement irréversibles liées à leur renvoi, l'effectivité au sens de l'article 13 ne requiert pas qu'ils disposent d'un recours de plein droit suspensif mais seulement d'une possibilité effective de contester la décision d'expulsion et d'obtenir un examen suffisamment approfondi et offrant des garanties procédurales adéquates des questions pertinentes par une instance interne compétente fournissant des gages suffisants d'indépendance et d'impartialité (De Souza Ribeiro c. France [GC], no 22689/07, § 83, CEDH 2012), ce qui n'est pas contesté par les requérants en l'espèce.
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.12.2018 - C-396/17

    Leitner - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Sozialpolitik - Richtlinie 2000/78/EG - …

    75 Vgl. u. a. EGMR, 13. Dezember 2012, De Souza Ribeiro/Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2012:1213JUD002268907, § 79), und EGMR, 13. April 2017, Tagayeva u. a./Russland (CE:ECHR:2017:0413JUD002656207, § 618).
  • EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 6528/11

    A.C. ET AUTRES c. ESPAGNE

    L'effectivité d'un recours au sens de l'article 13 demande impérativement un contrôle attentif par une autorité nationale (Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, no 36378/02, § 448, CEDH 2005-III), un examen indépendant et rigoureux de tout grief aux termes duquel il existe des motifs de croire à un risque de traitement contraire à l'article 3 (Jabari, précité, § 50) ainsi qu'une célérité particulière (Batı et autres c. Turquie, nos 33097/96 et 57834/00, § 136, CEDH 2004-IV (extraits), De Souza Ribeiro c. France [GC], no 22689/07, § 82, CEDH 2012).
  • EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 30083/10

    KARABEYOGLU c. TURQUIE

    Cette disposition a donc pour conséquence d'exiger un recours interne de nature à permettre l'examen du contenu d'un « grief défendable'fondé sur la Convention et à offrir le redressement approprié (De Souza Ribeiro c. France [GC], no 22689/07, §§ 78-79, CEDH 2012).
  • EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 25376/06

    CENI c. ITALIE

    Cette disposition a donc pour conséquence d'exiger un recours interne habilitant à examiner le contenu d'un « grief défendable'fondé sur la Convention et à en offrir le redressement approprié (De Souza Ribeiro c. France [GC], no 22689/07, § 78, 13 décembre 2012).
  • EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 35285/08

    IRFAN GÜZEL c. TURQUIE

    Cette disposition a donc pour conséquence d'exiger un recours interne de nature à permettre l'examen du contenu d'un « grief défendable'fondé sur la Convention et à offrir le redressement approprié (De Souza Ribeiro c. France [GC], no 22689/07, §§ 78-79, 13 décembre 2012, CEDH 2012, et plus récemment, Khlaifia et autres c. Italie [GC], no 16483/12, § 268, 15 décembre 2016, CEDH 2016).
  • Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.03.2020 - C-402/19

    CPAS de Seraing - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Einwanderungspolitik - …

    25 EGMR, 13. Dezember 2012, De Souza Ribeiro/Frankreich (CE:ECHR:2012:1213JUD002268907, § 83).
  • EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 51930/10

    NICOLÒ SANTILLI c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 65187/10

    BALAKCHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 28263/09

    BARATTA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11

    VALCHEVA AND ABRASHEV v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 15920/16

    PETRACHE ET TRANCA c. ITALIE

  • EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 73708/10

    COLOMBO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE ET ALLEMAGNE

  • EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 16458/12

    N. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 8013/12

    ZAMAN c. FRANCE

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