Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-general (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to choose residence) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Lokale Zuzugssperren für Arme: Kein Freizügigkeitsproblem

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Garib v. the Netherlands

  [25.01.2017]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09
• EGMR, 06.11.2017 - 43494/09

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 65389/09

  VAN ANRAAT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  In cases arising from individual applications the Court's task is not to review the relevant legislation or practice in the abstract; it must as far as possible confine itself, without overlooking the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, among other authorities, Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, § 39, Series A no. 81; Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 48, 24 October 2002; Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, § 75, 6 July 2010; and S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 92, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 33631/06

  VROUNTOU v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  As stated in Vrountou v. Cyprus (no. 33631/06, § 75, 13 October 2015), "advancement of gender equality is today a major goal in the member States of the Council of Europe and very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before such a difference in treatment could be regarded as compatible with the Convention".
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 36732/97

  PISANO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  In cases arising from individual applications the Court's task is not to review the relevant legislation or practice in the abstract; it must as far as possible confine itself, without overlooking the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, among other authorities, Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, § 39, Series A no. 81; Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 48, 24 October 2002; Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, § 75, 6 July 2010; and S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 92, ECHR 2011).

 
• EGMR, 31.01.1986 - 8734/79

  BARTHOLD v. GERMANY (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  Provided the interference remained within these bounds - which the Court, in view of its above considerations, is satisfied it did - it is not for the Court to say whether the measure complained of represented the best solution for dealing with the problem or whether the State's discretion should have been exercised in another way (see, mutatis mutandis, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 53, Series A no. 169; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; and Animal Defenders, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 10522/83

  Mellacher u.a. ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  Provided the interference remained within these bounds - which the Court, in view of its above considerations, is satisfied it did - it is not for the Court to say whether the measure complained of represented the best solution for dealing with the problem or whether the State's discretion should have been exercised in another way (see, mutatis mutandis, James and Others v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1986, § 51, Series A no. 98; Mellacher and Others v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 53, Series A no. 169; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III; and Animal Defenders, cited above, § 110).
• EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  In general, it can also be argued that the poor are a vulnerable group in and of themselves,[3] and that restrictions applied to this group must ensure a "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see I.B. v. Greece, § 78, no. 552/10, ECHR 2014); the State's margin of appreciation must accordingly also be narrower in this context (Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 63, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96

  OLIVIEIRA c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  One could argue, on the basis of the Article's drafting history and the fact that nationals of States Parties have a de facto absolute right of residence in the territory of their State under Article 12 ICCPR,[1] that a restriction under paragraph 4 is only possible in particular areas during emergency situations, by analogy with restrictions to the liberty of movement (see Landvreugd v. the Netherlands, no. 37331/97, § 71, 4 June 2002, and Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, § 56, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30566/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  It is important to bear in mind that even where States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation, "the final evaluation of whether the interference is necessary remains subject to review by the Court for conformity with the requirements of the Convention" (see Winterstein and Others v. France, no. 27013/07, §§ 147-148, 17 October 2013) and that States must be able to put forward "relevant and sufficient reasons" justifying the restriction (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 101-102, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  In matters of general policy, on which opinions within a democratic society may reasonably differ widely, the role of the domestic policy-maker should be given special weight (see, for example, Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, § 117, ECHR 2005-IX, and S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 129, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.1984 - 8990/80

  GUINCHO c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 43494/09

  In cases arising from individual applications the Court's task is not to review the relevant legislation or practice in the abstract; it must as far as possible confine itself, without overlooking the general context, to examining the issues raised by the case before it (see, among other authorities, Guincho v. Portugal, 10 July 1984, § 39, Series A no. 81; Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 48, 24 October 2002; Van Anraat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65389/09, § 75, 6 July 2010; and S.H. and Others v. Austria [GC], no. 57813/00, § 92, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 22.04.2013 - 48876/08

  Verbot politischer Fernsehwerbung

• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 04.09.2018 - 18 A 256/18

  Ausländer-Wohnsitzregelungsverordnung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen teilweise …

  Nr. 4 zur EMRK, EGMR, Urteil vom 23. Februar 2016 - 43494/09 -, NLMR 2/2016, 170 ff., muss eine Einschränkung gesetzlich vorgesehen und in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft durch das öffentliche Interesse gerechtfertigt sein.
• VGH Bayern, 19.03.2018 - 10 C 17.2591

  Räumliche Beschränkung des Aufenthaltstitels eines anerkannt Schutzberechtigten

  Dies kann jedoch dahingestellt bleiben, weil die Nationalstaaten jedenfalls die Befugnis besitzen, Aufenthaltstitel räumlich zu beschränken, wenn sich dafür sachliche Gründe anführen lassen (vgl. Hailbronner AuslR, AufenthG, § 12a Rn. 22 für die ähnlich lautende Vorschrift des Art. 2 Abs. 3 Zusatzprotokoll Nr. 4 zur EMRK unter Verweis auf EGMR, U.v. 23.2.2016 - Nr. 43494/09 - juris;… Röcker in Bergmann/Dienelt AuslR, 12. Aufl. 2018, AufenthG § 12a Rn. 69).