Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDREYEV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d, Art. 13, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1, Protoko... ll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99

  ANDRIC v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  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).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 42216/98

  BENAMAR ET AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  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).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03

  A.D. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  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).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01

  PELLUMBI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  However, with more particular 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, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  ETANJI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  However, with more particular 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, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  It is true that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not sufficient to deprive him of his status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, a breach of the Convention (see Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51; see also Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports 1996-III; Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 142, ECHR 2000-IV; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (dec.) [GC], no. 48787/99, 4 July 2001).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  However, with more particular 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, 26.10.1988 - 10581/83

  NORRIS c. IRLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  In other words, the person concerned must be directly affected by it or run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, for example, Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, §§ 30-31, Series A no. 142, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, § 39, Series A no. 295-A).
• EGMR, 20.09.1994 - 13470/87

  OTTO-PREMINGER-INSTITUT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  In other words, the person concerned must be directly affected by it or run the risk of being directly affected by it (see, for example, Norris v. Ireland, 26 October 1988, §§ 30-31, Series A no. 142, and Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, 20 September 1994, § 39, Series A no. 295-A).