Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AJAYI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  The Court has held that Article 8 does not impose a general obligation on States to respect the choice of residence of a married couple or to accept the non-national spouse for settlement in that country (Eur. Court H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 94, § 68).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  In this assessment of whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment, Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation which will vary according to the circumstances, subject-matter and background (see eg. Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 66-67, § 177).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84

  BERREHAB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  Whether removal or exclusion of a family member from a Contracting State is incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 will depend on a number of factors: the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them, whether there are factors of immigration control (eg. history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion ( see eg. see Eur. Court HR, Abdulaziz and others judgment referred to above at § 68, Berrehab v. the Netherlands judgment of 21 June 1988, Series A no. 138, § 29, Beldjoudi v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A No. 234, p. 28, § 78, Gül v. Switzerland judgment of 19 February 1996, Reports 1996-I p. 159 at p. 176, § 42, Bouchelkia v. France judgment of 29 January 1997, Reports of judgments and decisions 1997-I, p. 65, §§ 50-53).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  It only applies if the individual can be said to have an "arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p.23, § 52).

• EGMR, 03.10.2014 - 12738/10

  JEUNESSE c. PAYS-BAS

  It is the Court's well-established case-law that, where this is the case, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 94, § 68; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; M. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25087/06, 24 June 2008; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 39; Arvelo Aponte v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 57-58; and Butt v. Norway, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10

  BIAO v. DENMARK

  Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 21392/09

  MOHAMED c. FRANCE

  La Cour a précédemment jugé que lorsque tel est le cas, ce n'est que dans des circonstances tout à fait exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n'ayant pas la nationalité de l'État hôte constitue une violation de l'article 8 (Mitchell c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 40447/98, 24 novembre 1998, et Ajayi et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 27663/95, 22 juin 1999).

 
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 25579/09

  A. Y. c. FRANCE

  La Cour a précédemment jugé que lorsque tel est le cas ce n'est que dans des circonstances particulièrement exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n'ayant pas la nationalité de l'Etat hôte constitue une violation de l'article 8 (Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c. Pays-Bas, no 50435/99, § 39, CEDH 2006-I, Mitchell c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 40447/98, 24 novembre 1998, et Ajayi et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 27663/95, 22 juin 1999).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 57633/10

  IMAMOVIC v. SWEDEN

  Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; and Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  OLGUN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 25087/06

  M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998, and Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 1722/10

  BIRAGA AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibidem; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).