Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 29790/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GULIYEV AND SHEINA v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
GULIYEV AND SHEINA v. RUSSIA
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (4)
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 29790/14
The Court notes that its settled case-law on the examination of complaints concerning the right to respect for family life under Article 8 of the Convention implies examination of the complaints lodged by the persons in respect of whom the impugned measure was imposed and/or by their family members (see, among many examples, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 62, Series A no. 94; Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, §§ 53 and 55, 31 July 2008; and Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, §§ 59 and 87, 14 February 2012).The Court reaffirms at the outset that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94).
- EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 25735/94
Fall E. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 29790/14
Thus, there exists between the child and his parents a bond amounting to family life (see Elsholz v. Germany [GC], no. 25735/94, § 43, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 18299/03
Vorgehen bei Geiselnahme in Moskau verurteilt // Russland muss Hinterbliebene von …
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 29790/14
18299/03, 27311/03, § 196, 18 March 2010). - EGMR - 45886/07
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 29790/14
According to its well-established case-law on the matter, it is for the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy they referred to was an effective one, available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, among many authorities, Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 46, ECHR 2006-II, and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 225, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
- EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 14697/18
SHERSTOBITOVA v. RUSSIA
The relevant general principles have been summarized in Guliyev and Sheina v. Russia, no. 29790/14, §§ 46-52, 17 April 2018. - EGMR, 26.07.2022 - 11005/19
SMIRNOV AND NOVOSELOVA v. RUSSIA
The relevant general principles have been summarized in Guliyev and Sheina v. Russia, no. 29790/14, §§ 46-52, 17 April 2018. - EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 296/18
RAKHMONOVY v. RUSSIA
For relevant general principles see Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 109, 3 October 2014, and Guliyev and Sheina v. Russia, no. 29790/14, §§ 46-52, 17 April 2018.