Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO v. DENMARK
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8 MRK
No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BIAO v. DENMARK - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Sonstiges (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Biao v. Denmark
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BIAO v. DENMARK
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Biao v. Denmark
[01.04.2015]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 38590/10
- EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 38590/10
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (24)
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court reiterates that a State is entitled, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94, Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).They also referred to, inter alia, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia ([GC], no. 26828/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom (no. 22341/09, 6 November 2012) which in their view were more relevant to the present case than Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, Series A no. 94) notably because the latter authority was old, and because the aim of the legislation had been different.
In paragraph 94, the Court has quoted Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom (28 May 1985, § 88, Series A no. 94), where special treatment, unlike the situation in the present case, was not based on the length of citizenship but stemmed from birth within the country, from citizenship versus non-citizenship or from long-time residence versus residence that is clearly not long-term, namely to the effect that:.
- EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 55762/00
TIMISHEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
55762/00 and 55974/00, 13 December 2005, § 56; and Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, 18 February 2009, § 87, where the Court did not pay enough heed even to such an otherwise decisive factor as that the justification for the difference in treatment had stemmed, ultimately, from the history of the respondent State's occupation by a foreign power). - EGMR, 16.09.1996 - 17371/90
GAYGUSUZ v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
Very weighty reasons would have to be put forward before the Court could regard a difference of treatment based exclusively on the ground of ethnic or national origin as compatible with the Convention (see Gaygusuz v. Austria, no. 17371/90, 16 September 1996, § 42) and justify such discrimination (see Koua Poirrez v. France, no. 40892/98, 30 September 2003, § 46; Timishev v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
GUZZARDI v. ITALY
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
In following the wording used in Taxquet, which was intended to justify the fact that the Court in that case did not examine the institution of the jury as such, the majority have omitted a consideration which has been present ever since the Court formulated its individualised approach in Guzzardi v. Italy (6 November 1980, Series A no. 39). - EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 40825/98
RELIGIONSGEMEINSCHAFT DER ZEUGEN JEHOVAS AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court has consistently held that its task is not to review domestic law and practice in abstracto or to express a view as to the compatibility of the provisions of legislation with the Convention, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied or in which they affected the applicant gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities, in the Article 14 context, Religionsgemeinschaft der Zeugen Jehovas and Others v. Austria, no. 40825/98, § 90, 31 July 2008). - EGMR, 18.02.2009 - 55707/00
Andrejeva ./. Lettland
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
55762/00 and 55974/00, 13 December 2005, § 56; and Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no. 55707/00, 18 February 2009, § 87, where the Court did not pay enough heed even to such an otherwise decisive factor as that the justification for the difference in treatment had stemmed, ultimately, from the history of the respondent State's occupation by a foreign power). - EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 56328/07
BAH c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court accepts that in this respect the applicants enjoyed "other status" for the purpose of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 46-48; Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94
HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
"The Court has also accepted that a general policy or measure which is apparently neutral but has disproportionately prejudicial effects on persons or groups of persons who, as for instance in the present case, are identifiable only on the basis of an ethnic criterion, may be considered discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed at that group (see, mutatis mutandis, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, 4 May 2001, and Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58461/00, 6 January 2005; and Sampanis, cited above, § 68), unless that measure is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate, necessary and proportionate. - EGMR, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10
KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
The Court accepts that in this respect the applicants enjoyed "other status" for the purpose of Article 14 of the Convention (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 46-48; Bah v. the United Kingdom, no. 56328/07, §§ 43-46, ECHR 2011; and Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 57, ECHR 2011). - EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02
ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE
Auszug aus EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 38590/10
Furthermore, discrimination potentially contrary to the Convention may result from a de facto situation (see Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, § 76, ECHR 2006-VIII). - EGMR, 24.11.2005 - 49429/99
CAPITAL BANK AD v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 5056/10
Emre ./. Schweiz
- EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 36812/97
SYLVESTER v. AUSTRIA
- EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 19165/08
DONOHOE v. IRELAND
- EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 40083/07
SAIDOUN c. GRECE
- EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5095/71
KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN v. DENMARK
- EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 50435/99
Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Abschiebung, Duldung, unerlaubter Aufenthalt, Kinder
- EGMR, 12.04.2006 - 65731/01
STEC ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 43279/98
SARUMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 44328/98
SOLOMON v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10
ANTWI AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
- EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98
MITCHELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 50065/99
SHEBASHOV contre la LETTONIE
- EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95
AJAYI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- VGH Bayern, 04.03.2019 - 10 ZB 18.2195
Verlängerung einer Aufenthaltserlaubnis aus humanitären Gründen
Auch der EGMR betont insbesondere in seiner neuen Rechtsprechung das Interesse der Steuerung und Regulierung der Einwanderung (…EGMR, U.v. 8.11.2016 - Nr. 56971/10 - Rn. 44; U.v. 25.3.2014 - Nr. 38590/10 - Rn. 53;… U.v. 30.7.2013 - Nr. 948/12 - Rn. 49;… s. auch Hailbronner, Ausländerrecht, Stand November 2018, § 25 Rn. 185, 200). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.03.2015 - C-153/14
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwältin Kokott kann die Familienzusammenführung …
Vgl. auch jüngst das Urteil des EGMR vom 25. März 2014, Biao/Dänemark (Nr. 38590/10), § 53. - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 07.05.2015 - C-218/14
Singh u.a. - Richtlinie 2004/38/EG - Art. 7 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 12 und Art. 13 …
5 - Vgl. dazu die Nrn. 63 bis 67 meiner Schlussanträge vom 8. September 2005 in der Rechtssache Parlament/Rat (C-540/03, EU:C:2005:517) und die Urteile des EGMR vom 2. August 2001 in der Rechtssache Boultif/Schweiz (Nr. 54273/00), Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2001-IX, § 39, und vom 25. März 2014, Biao/Dänemark (Nr. 38590/10), § 53.