Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  K.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 8, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  BOULTIF v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 46086/07

  However, the removal of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of the right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 46086/07

  In these circumstances, there are no special reasons to assume that the applicants could not establish their family life and matrimonial home outside Russia (see, by contrast, the Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, § 45, Series A no. 193).

• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 29272/08

  ÖZEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  S'agissant de la question de la représentation des requérants, la Cour rappelle que l'absence du formulaire de pouvoir peut entraîner l'irrecevabilité d'une requête (Post c. Pays-Bas, (déc.), no 21727/08, 20 janvier 2009, et K.M. et autres c. Russie (déc.), no 46086/07, 29 avril 2010).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 51988/07

  KASPAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Consequently, in the circumstances of the case, the application in so far as lodged in respect of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants must be rejected as incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, §§ 29-30, 29 April 2010; Erisen and Others v. Turkey, no. 7067/06, §§ 29-30, 3 April 2012; and Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 91, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 2140/13

  N.Z. v. CROATIA

  Consequently, in the circumstances of the case the application must be rejected for being incompatible ratione personae, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 21727/08, 20 January 2009; K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, 29 April 2010; and Sükrü Çetin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 10449/08, 13 September 2011).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 33486/13

  METALO CHIMICA SOCIETATE COOPERATIVA MESTESUGAREASCA v. ROMANIA

  Where the case files did not contain a power of attorney or a document in which the applicants themselves had indicated that they wished the stated representative to lodge an application with the Court on their behalf, the Court considered that such cases should be rejected for want of an "applicant" for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention and it declared them inadmissible as incompatible ratione personae pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see K.M. and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 46086/07, 29 April 2010 and Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, § 14, 15 May 2012).