Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAYDARIE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 8876/04

  The Government referred to the case-law of the Court (Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and 16 Other Contracting States (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001 XII), according to which it was only in exceptional cases that acts of Contracting States performed, or producing effects, outside their territories could constitute an exercise of jurisdiction by those States.
• EGMR, 10.04.2003 - 53470/99

  MEHEMI c. FRANCE (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.10.2005 - 8876/04

  The Court notes in this context, however, that due consideration should be given to cases where a parent has achieved settled status in a country and wants to be reunited with his or her children who, for the time being, have been left behind in their country of origin or a third country, and that it may be unreasonable to force the parent to choose between giving up the position which he or she has acquired in the country of settlement or to renounce the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other's company which constitutes a fundamental element of family life (see Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 45, ECHR 2003-IV).

• EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18

  Familiennachzug bei subsidiärem Schutz: Kompromiss zwischen Menschenrechten und …

  La personne qui demande à être rejointe (candidat) n'est pas en mesure de démontrer qu'elle dispose de revenus personnels stables indépendants, ne provenant pas de prestations sociales, lui permettant de pourvoir aux besoins fondamentaux des membres de sa famille (voir, notamment, Haydarie c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 8876/04, 20 octobre 2005, Konstatinov, précité, § 50, et Hasanbasic c. Suisse, no 52166/09, § 59, 11 juin 2013).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33917/12

  DJOKABA LAMBI LONGA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Enfin, les Etats n'ont, en principe, aucune obligation d'autoriser les ressortissants étrangers à attendre le résultat d'une procédure d'immigration sur leur territoire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Nsona c. Pays-Bas, 28 novembre 1996, § 93, Recueil 1996-V, Chandra et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 53102/99, 13 mai 2003, Benamar et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 43786/04, 5 avril 2005, et Haydarie et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 8876/04, 20 octobre 2005).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 12510/18

  DABO v. SWEDEN

  (iv) The person requesting family reunification (the sponsor) could not demonstrate that he/she had sufficient independent and lasting income, not being welfare benefits, to provide for the basic cost of subsistence of his or her family members (see, notably, Haydarie v. Netherlands (dec.), no. 8876/04, 20 October 2005; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 50; and Hasanbasic v. Switzerland, no. 52166/09, § 59, 11 June 2013).
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 26828/06

  MAKUC AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA

  In addition, where immigration is concerned, Article 8 cannot be considered to impose on a State a general obligation to authorise family reunion in its territory (see Haydarie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 8876/04, 20 October 2005) nor does this provision guarantee to a non-national the right to choose the most suitable place to develop family life (see Ahmut v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 November 1996 Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2033, § 71).