Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YESHTLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 27034/05

  Z. et T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  The Court notes that Y had already come of age when the applicant applied for housing benefit for 2006 and reiterates the Court's well-established case-law in immigration cases that relationships between adult relatives do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017 and E.P. v. the Netherlands and A.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 16351/03

  KONSTATINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  The Court notes that Y had already come of age when the applicant applied for housing benefit for 2006 and reiterates the Court's well-established case-law in immigration cases that relationships between adult relatives do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017 and E.P. v. the Netherlands and A.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 39051/03

  EMONET ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  The Court notes that Y had already come of age when the applicant applied for housing benefit for 2006 and reiterates the Court's well-established case-law in immigration cases that relationships between adult relatives do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017 and E.P. v. the Netherlands and A.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.

 
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 5049/12

  SENCHISHAK v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  The Court notes that Y had already come of age when the applicant applied for housing benefit for 2006 and reiterates the Court's well-established case-law in immigration cases that relationships between adult relatives do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017 and E.P. v. the Netherlands and A.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  The Court notes that Y had already come of age when the applicant applied for housing benefit for 2006 and reiterates the Court's well-established case-law in immigration cases that relationships between adult relatives do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017 and E.P. v. the Netherlands and A.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 43538/11

  E.P. AND A.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  43538/11 and 63104/11, § 89, 11 July 2017).

• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 25402/14

  PORMES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, it has not insisted on such further elements of dependency in a number of cases concerning young adults who were still living with their parents and had not yet started a family of their own (see Bouchelkia v. France, 29 January 1997, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I; Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 26, 13 February 2001; Maslov, cited above, §§ 62 and 64; Osman v. Denmark, no. 38058/09, §§ 55-56, 14 June 2011; and Yesthla v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 37115/11, § 32, 15 January 2019).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  AZERKANE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, it has not insisted on such further elements of dependency in a number of cases concerning young adults who were still living with their parents and had not yet started a family of their own (see Bouchelkia v. France, 29 January 1997, § 41, Reports 1997-I; Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 26, 13 February 2001; Maslov, cited above, §§ 62 and 64; Osman v. Denmark, no. 38058/09, §§ 55-56, 14 June 2011; and Yesthla v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 37115/11, § 32, 15 January 2019).