Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1999,28235) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
PRANJKO v. SWEDEN
Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4 MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99
In this connection, the Court notes that, in assessing whether a deportation involves such a trauma that it in itself constitutes a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, its physical and mental effects and the state of health of the person concerned are to be taken into account (see Eur. Court HR, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31, §§ 83-84, and the opinion of the Commission, p. 87, §§ 87-90). - EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86
MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99
The Court recalls that the expulsion of a person from a country in which close members of his family live may amount to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see, among other authorities, the Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, pp. 19-20, §§ 43-46). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99
However, an expulsion decision may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of the State, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he or she is to be expelled (see, among other authorities, the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, §§ 102-103).
- EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01
PELLUMBI c. FRANCE
Dans la mesure où le requérant ne court pas actuellement un risque direct d'éloignement du territoire français, il ne peut en conséquence se prétendre victime d'une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention au sens de son article 34 (Benamar c. France (déc.), no 42216/98, 14 novembre 2000 ; Mehemi (no 2) c. France, no 53470/99, CEDH 2003-IV, 10 avril 2003 ; Pranko c. Suède (déc.), no 45925/99, 23 février 1999).