Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 16567/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NACIC AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Serbia) No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 16567/10
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.The Court has, however, also held that the Convention includes no right, as such, to establish one's family life in a particular country (see, inter alia, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 34, § 68; Gül v. Switzerland, judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, pp. 174-75, § 38; and Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX).
- EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 50068/08
AL-ZAWATIA v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 16567/10
The fact that the applicants" circumstances would be less favourable than those they enjoy in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 38, ECHR 2001-I; Salkic and others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7702/04, 29 June 2004; and Al-Zawatia v. Sweden (dec.) no. 50068/08, 22 June 2010). - EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74
MARCKX v. BELGIUM
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 16567/10
In the Court's case-law relating to expulsion and extradition measures, the main emphasis has consistently been placed on the "family life" aspect, which has been interpreted as encompassing the effective "family life" established in the territory of a Contracting State by aliens lawfully resident there, it being understood that "family life" in this sense is normally limited to the core family (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 45; see also, X v. Germany, no. 3110/67, Commission decision of 19 July 1968, Collection of decisions 27, pp. 77-96).
- EGMR, 16.02.2000 - 27798/95
AMANN c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 16567/10
According to the established case-law of the Court, the expression "in accordance with the law" requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, and it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-II). - EKMR, 19.07.1968 - 3110/67
X. v. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 16567/10
In the Court's case-law relating to expulsion and extradition measures, the main emphasis has consistently been placed on the "family life" aspect, which has been interpreted as encompassing the effective "family life" established in the territory of a Contracting State by aliens lawfully resident there, it being understood that "family life" in this sense is normally limited to the core family (see, mutatis mutandis, Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 45; see also, X v. Germany, no. 3110/67, Commission decision of 19 July 1968, Collection of decisions 27, pp. 77-96). - EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 7702/04
SALKIC and OTHERS v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 16567/10
The fact that the applicants" circumstances would be less favourable than those they enjoy in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, § 38, ECHR 2001-I; Salkic and others v. Sweden (dec.), no. 7702/04, 29 June 2004; and Al-Zawatia v. Sweden (dec.) no. 50068/08, 22 June 2010).
- EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18
Familiennachzug bei subsidiärem Schutz: Kompromiss zwischen Menschenrechten und …
Il indique que, selon la jurisprudence, que « la mise en ?“uvre effective d'un contrôle de l'immigration'peut passer pour un but légitime lié à la préservation du bien-être économique d'un pays propre à justifier une ingérence dans la vie familiale (voir, entre autres, Berrehab c. Pays-Bas, 21 juin 1988, § 26, série A no 138, Nacic et autres c. Suède, no 16567/10, § 79, 15 mai 2012, et J.M. c. Suède (déc.), no 47509/13, § 40, 8 avril 2014). - BVerwG, 25.10.2012 - 10 B 16.12
Abschiebungsverbot wegen Verletzung des Art. 3 MRK im Heimatstaat
Dass damit keine generelle Erstreckung dieser Rechtsprechung auf zu gewährleistende Standards im Heimatstaat des Betroffenen einhergeht, ergibt sich im Übrigen auch aus nachfolgenden Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (…EGMR, Urteile vom 28. Juni 2011 - Nr. 8319/07, Sufi u. Elmi - NVwZ 2012, 681 Rn. 282 f. und vom 15. Mai 2012 - Nr. 16567/10, Nacic u.a. - Rn. 49 u. 54). - VG Oldenburg, 10.09.2012 - 5 A 1245/11
Abschiebungsschutz; EMRK, 1. Zusatzprotokoll; Gesundheitsvorsorge; …
Im Gegenteil sieht auch der EGMR in seiner Rechtsprechung keine generelle Rückkehrgefährdung für Roma aus Kosovo und Serbien (vgl. etwa EGMR, Urteil vom 15. Mai 2012 - 16567/10 - Nacic u.a. ./. Schweden, Rn. 86, www.echr.coe.int). - VG Oldenburg, 10.09.2012 - 5 A 1482/11
Abschiebungsschutz; EMRK, 1. Zusatzprotokoll; Gesundheitsversorgung; …
Im Gegenteil sieht auch der EGMR in seiner Rechtsprechung keine generelle Rückkehrgefährdung für Roma aus Kosovo und Serbien (vgl. etwa EGMR, Urteil vom 15. Mai 2012 - 16567/10 - N. u.a. ./. Schweden, Rn. 86, www.echr.coe.int).