Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALIM v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 8 (in case of expulsion from Russia) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Alim v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 50435/99

  Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Abschiebung, Duldung, unerlaubter Aufenthalt, Kinder

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State's obligations to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-I).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  A failure on the part of a Government to submit convincing evidence on conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  However, the Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires the State to ensure that detention conditions are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the detainees to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see, among others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The Court reiterates that to be regarded as degrading or inhuman for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention treatment must attain a minimum level of severity (see Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The Court reiterates that it is permissible, under certain circumstances, to shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the Government (see, among others, Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, § 123, 10 June 2010; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45582/99

  L. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The existence or non-existence of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 is also a question of fact depending upon the real existence in practice of close personal ties, for instance the demonstrable interest and commitment by the father to the child both before and after birth (see L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, § 36, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  It will depend on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is appropriate for the Court to focus on the "family life" rather than the "private life" aspect (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 59, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  While the Court cannot but observe that the decision of 11 January 2007 contained no reasoning concerning the detention matter, this flaw did not amount to a gross and obvious irregularity (see Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 84, ECHR 2009-..., and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 81, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

  KOKOSHKINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The Court reiterates that it is permissible, under certain circumstances, to shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the Government (see, among others, Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, § 123, 10 June 2010; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The Court reiterates that it is permissible, under certain circumstances, to shift the burden of proof from the applicant to the Government (see, among others, Zakharkin v. Russia, no. 1555/04, § 123, 10 June 2010; Kokoshkina v. Russia, no. 2052/08, § 59, 28 May 2009, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004).
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  GUBIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04

  SCHALK AND KOPF v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  KEEGAN v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84

  BERREHAB v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

• EGMR - 70090/10 (anhängig)

  TSERKOV YEVANGELSKIKH KHRISTIAN-BAPTISTOV AND PANASENKO v. RUSSIA

  - When dealing with the administrative offence charges against the applicants, did the national courts carry out a proportionality analysis, weighing the applicants" Article 9 freedom vis-à-vis a legitimate public interest (see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011, and Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, § 141, 30 May 2013)? Were the applicants given advance notice that their activities were in breach of the law? After breaches had been uncovered, were the applicants afforded time or opportunity to remedy the alleged irregularities?.