Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  Art. 8 MRK
  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2018, 387

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 53124/09

  GENOVESE v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  The Court has previously stated that although the right to citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy (dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011).

  It has also established that Article 8 embraces multiple aspects of the person's physical and social identity, like the recognition of an individual's legal civil status (registration of a marriage in Dadouch v. Malta, no. 38816/07, § 48, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and refusal of nationality in Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, §§ 30 and 33, 11 October 2011).

• EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 48321/99

  SLIVENKO v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  The Court has previously stated that although the right to citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy (dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011).

  Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, ECHR 2002-II.

• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  The Government referred to Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France (27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B) where the Court had distinguished the case of those applicants from that of Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 161), since in the former case no expulsion order had been made in respect of the applicants.

  In reference to the specific category of cases involving the deportation of non-nationals, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a deportation measure if the measure is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  In this respect, it should be mentioned that the Court has recently held that an individual's ethnic identity must be regarded as an essential aspect of his or her private life and identity, along with such aspects as name, gender, religion and sexual orientation (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008, and Ciubotaru v. Moldova, no. 27138/04, § 53, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  In this respect, it should be mentioned that the Court has recently held that an individual's ethnic identity must be regarded as an essential aspect of his or her private life and identity, along with such aspects as name, gender, religion and sexual orientation (S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 2008, and Ciubotaru v. Moldova, no. 27138/04, § 53, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  Thus, the absence of any such disadvantage can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute or the importance of the case for the applicant (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.) no. 36659/04, § 34, 1 June 2010; Rinck v. France (dec.) no. 18774/09, 19 October 2010; and Kiousi v. Greece (dec.) no. 52036/09, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05

  SAVOIA and BOUNEGRU v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  The Court has previously stated that although the right to citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy (dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  The severity of a violation should be assessed taking account of both the applicant's subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case (see Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03

  A.D. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  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, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  The Government referred to Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France (27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B) where the Court had distinguished the case of those applicants from that of Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, Series A no. 161), since in the former case no expulsion order had been made in respect of the applicants.
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99

  ANDRIC v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01

  PELLUMBI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 28.03.1990 - 10890/84

  GROPPERA RADIO AG ET AUTRES c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 42216/98

  BENAMAR ET AUTRES contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  ETANJI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 19.10.2010 - 18774/09

  RINCK c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 52036/09

  KIOUSI c. GRECE
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

• BVerwG, 19.04.2018 - 1 C 1.17

  Kleinkind kann deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit durch Vaterschaftsanfechtung …

  Zwar kann die willkürliche Entziehung der Staatsangehörigkeit wegen der Auswirkungen auf das Privatleben des Betroffenen unter Umständen eine Frage nach Art. 8 EMRK aufwerfen und sind dabei etwaige aufenthaltsrechtliche Folgen einer solchen Entziehung mit zu berücksichtigen (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 21. Juni 2016 - Nr. 76136/12, Ramadan/Malta - NVwZ 2018, 387).

  Ein Recht auf eine bestimmte Art der Aufenthaltsgenehmigung garantieren Art. 8 EMRK, Art. 7 GRC jedenfalls nicht (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 21. Juni 2016 - Nr. 76136/12 - NVwZ 2018, 387 Rn. 91).

• EGMR, 25.06.2020 - 52273/16

  GHOUMID ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Il reste que, bien que le droit à la nationalité ne soit pas en tant que tel garanti par la Convention ou par ses protocoles, une déchéance arbitraire de nationalité peut dans certaines circonstances poser un problème au regard de l'article 8 de la Convention du fait de son impact sur la vie privée de l'intéressé (Ramadan c. Malte, no 76136/12, § 85, 21 juin 2016 ; voir aussi K2 c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 42387/13, § 45, 7 février 2017).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42387/13

  K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Recently the Court has accepted that the same principles must apply to the revocation of citizenship already obtained, since this might lead to a similar - if not greater - interference with the individual's right to respect for family and private life (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 85, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 7549/09

  ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA

  Recently, the Court has accepted that the same principles must apply to the revocation of citizenship already obtained, since this might lead to a similar - if not greater - interference with the individual's right to respect for family and private life (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 85, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and K2 v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42387/13, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 1480/16

  HASHEMI ET AUTRES c. AZERBAÏDJAN

  Appréciation de la Cour 45. La Cour rappelle que la notion de « vie privée'au sens de l'article 8 de la Convention est une notion large, qui englobe des aspects multiples de l'identité sociale d'une personne (Genovese c. Malte, no 53124/09, §§ 30 et 33, 11 octobre 2011, et Ramadan c. Malte, no 76136/12, § 62, 21 juin 2016).
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 38334/08

  ANCHEV v. BULGARIA

  The lack of suspensive effect did not in itself make those claims an ineffective remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 83, ECHR 2012, recently reiterated in Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 55, 21 June 2016, and in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 278, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  HOTI v. CROATIA

  In particular, if a residence permit allows the holder to reside within the territory of the host country and to exercise freely there the right to respect for his or her private and family life, the granting of such a permit represents in principle a sufficient measure to meet the requirements of Article 8. In such cases, the Court is not empowered to rule on whether the individual concerned should be granted one particular legal status rather than another, that choice being a matter for the domestic authorities alone (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 91, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 42321/15

  SUDITA KEITA v. HUNGARY

  In particular, if a residence permit allows the holder to reside within the territory of the host country and to exercise freely there the right to respect for his or her private and family life, the granting of such a permit represents in principle a sufficient measure to meet the requirements of Article 8. In such cases, the Court is not empowered to rule on whether the individual concerned should be granted one particular legal status rather than another, that choice being a matter for the domestic authorities alone (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 91, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 13.07.2023 - 1/16

  EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)

  The Court's assessment 50. The Court reiterates that the notion of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention is a broad concept which embraces multiple aspects of a person's physical and social identity (see Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011, and Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 62, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 26781/19

  LARABA v. DENMARK

  The deprivation of his Danish nationality complained of was thus to a large extent a result of the applicant's own choices and actions (see, inter alia, Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 89, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 27801/19

  JOHANSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 32538/10

  AHMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 12456/19

  ZEGGAI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 74411/16

  SAID ABDUL SALAM MUBARAK v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  AKELIENE v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR - 49532/19 (anhängig)

  ZAICOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 35237/14

  YERMAKOVICH v. RUSSIA