Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 7, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07

  For Article 3, the mere fact of return to a country where one's economic position will be worse than in a Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, 27 May 2008) and the Court is unable to find that the applicant, a young man in good health, would have been particularly vulnerable at the time of his deportation.
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07

  The expression "in accordance with the law" requires first, that the impugned measure should have a basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it be accessible to the persons concerned and formulated with sufficient precision to enable them - if need be, with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail (The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), 26 April 1979, §§ 47-49, Series A no. 30).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07

  For instance, when assessing the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by an applicant, it has to be taken into account whether he or she committed them as a juvenile or as an adult (see, for instance, Moustaquim v. Belgium, judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 19, § 44, and Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 35, 22 April 2004).

• EGMR, 02.04.2013 - 27725/10

  MOHAMMED HUSSEIN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS AND ITALY

  The Court further reiterates that the mere fact of return to a country where one's economic position will be worse than in the expelling Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010 and, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, ECHR 2008), that Article 3 cannot be interpreted as obliging the High Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, and that this provision does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 249).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 53852/11

  HALIMI v. AUSTRIA AND ITALY

  The Court further reiterates that the mere fact of return to a country where ones economic position will be worse than in the expelling Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, ECHR 2008); that Article 3 cannot be interpreted as obliging the High Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home; and that this provision does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 249, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 38030/12

  KHAN v. GERMANY

  Es wird tatsächlich nur selten vorkommen, dass ein niedergelassener Migrant nicht in der Lage sein wird zu belegen, dass seine Abschiebung einen Eingriff in sein durch Artikel 8 EMRK garantiertes Privatleben darstellt (siehe Miah./. Vereinigtes Königreich (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53080/07, Rdnr. 17, 27.

 
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 3202/09

  F.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The mere fact of return to a country where the applicant's economic position will be worse than in a Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010 and Abdi Ibrahim v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14535/10, § 31, 18 September 2012).

  The Court also accepts that the applicant's removal to Uganda interfered with the private life which she had unquestionably established in the United Kingdom (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 17, 27 April 2010).

• EGMR, 04.06.2013 - 6198/12

  DAYTBEGOVA AND MAGOMEDOVA v. AUSTRIA

  The Court further reiterates that the mere fact of return to a country where one's economic position will be worse than in the expelling Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, ECHR 2008), that Article 3 cannot be interpreted as obliging the High Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, and that this provision does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 249, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 7841/14

  LEVAKOVIC v. DENMARK

  It must therefore be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8. Indeed, it will be a rare case where a settled migrant is unable to demonstrate that his or her deportation would interfere with his or her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 17, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 45971/08

  SAVASCI v. GERMANY

  Daher gab es keine unüberwindbaren Hindernisse, die seiner Reintegration in sein Herkunftsland entgegenstanden (vgl. Miah./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53080/07, Rdnr. 25, 27. April 2010).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  BALOGUN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court recalls that, as Article 8 protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's social identity, it must be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants such as the applicant and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8. Indeed it will be a rare case where a settled migrant will be unable to demonstrate that his or her deportation would interfere with his or her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 17, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 73874/11

  ABUBEKER v. AUSTRIA AND ITALY

  The Court further reiterates that the mere fact of return to a country where one's economic position will be worse than in the expelling Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010, and, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, ECHR 2008), that Article 3 cannot be interpreted as obliging the High Contracting Parties to provide everyone within their jurisdiction with a home, and that this provision does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to enable them to maintain a certain standard of living (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 249, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  It must therefore be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8. Indeed, it will be a rare case where a settled migrant is unable to demonstrate that his or her deportation would interfere with his or her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 17, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 16711/15

  MOHAMMAD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  SAMSONNIKOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 15620/09

  SHALA v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 6222/10

  A.H. KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 14535/10

  ABDI IBRAHIM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 21783/08

  ANAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 56090/08

  M.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM