Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NEGASSI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NEGASSI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 300/11

  C.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 64337/14

  The subjective perception must be justified on objective grounds (see, inter alia, C.P. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 300/11, § 47, 6 September 2016 and Mura v. Poland, cited above, §§ 21 and 24).
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 23563/07

  GAGLIANO GIORGI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 64337/14

  The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative and depends on all the circumstances of the case (see Gagliano Giorgi v. Italy, no. 23563/07, § 55, ECHR 2012-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 35365/05

  LADYGIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 64337/14

  Inspired by the general principle de minimis non curat praetor, this first criterion of the rule rests on the premise that a violation of a right, however real from a purely legal point of view, should attain a minimum level of severity to warrant consideration by an international court (see Ladygin v. Russia (dec.), no. 35365/05, 30 August 2011).

 
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 64337/14

  With regard to Article 8 of the Convention, the judge noted that although there was no positive right to work, an unlawful prohibition on access to the labour market could amount to an interference with the right to respect for private life (see, for example, Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 36659/04

  IONESCU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 64337/14

  The question whether the applicant has suffered any "significant disadvantage" represents the main element of the rule set forth in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; see also Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010-V).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 25551/05

  KOROLEV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 64337/14

  The question whether the applicant has suffered any "significant disadvantage" represents the main element of the rule set forth in Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (see Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010; see also Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, ECHR 2010-V).
• EGMR, 16.12.1992 - 13710/88

  NIEMIETZ v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2017 - 64337/14

  With regard to Article 8 of the Convention, the judge noted that although there was no positive right to work, an unlawful prohibition on access to the labour market could amount to an interference with the right to respect for private life (see, for example, Niemietz v. Germany, 16 December 1992, § 29, Series A no. 251-B and Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 47, ECHR 2004-VIII).