Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.D. c. SUISSE

  Art. 8, Art. 3 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03

  A ce sujet, la Cour rappelle qu'un requérant ne peut se prétendre «victime», au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention, que s'il est ou a été directement touché par l'acte ou omission litigieux: il faut qu'il en subisse ou risque d'en subir directement les effets (arrêts Otto-Preminger-Institut c. Autriche, arrêt du 20 septembre 1994, série A no 295-A, § 39 et Norris c. Irlande, arrêt du 26 octobre 1988, série A no 142, §§ 30 et s).
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03

  A ce sujet, la Cour rappelle qu'un requérant ne peut se prétendre «victime», au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention, que s'il est ou a été directement touché par l'acte ou omission litigieux: il faut qu'il en subisse ou risque d'en subir directement les effets (arrêts Otto-Preminger-Institut c. Autriche, arrêt du 20 septembre 1994, série A no 295-A, § 39 et Norris c. Irlande, arrêt du 26 octobre 1988, série A no 142, §§ 30 et s).

• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect, and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 93, with further references to the cases of Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  AUAD v. BULGARIA

  It notes, firstly, that the order for his expulsion, having been upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court, is final and enforceable (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 358, ECHR 2005-III; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 100, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 90, 29 July 2010; and Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876/08, § 63, 17 June 2010, and contrast Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; Shamayev and Others, cited above, §§ 354-55, ECHR 2005-III; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 60, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).

 
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  KARIMOV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andriÿ v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 44448/08

  DRISSI c. ITALIE

  On ne saurait donc se prétendre victime d'un acte dépourvu, temporairement ou définitivement, de tout effet juridique (Benamar c. France (déc.), no 42216/98, 14 novembre 2000, et Djemailji c. Suisse (déc.), no 13531/03, 18 janvier 2005).
• EGMR, 07.01.2010 - 21010/08

  KAMACO c. SUISSE

  Dans ces conditions, celui-ci ne court actuellement pas un risque direct d'éloignement du territoire suisse et n'est plus menacé d'une atteinte à ses droits garantis par l'article 3 (cf. mutatis mutandis, Djemailji c. Suisse (déc.), no 13531/03, 18 janvier 2005).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  ABDULAZHON ISAKOV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  ANDREYEV v. ESTONIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect, and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Sisojeva, cited above, § 93, with further references to the cases of Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005).