Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 20651/11 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,7978) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
H.N. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
Struck out of the list (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
H.N. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 15.09.2005 - 10154/04
BONGER v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 20651/11
The Court considers that the mere fact that the applicant will not be eligible for an indefinite residence permit in 2016, which she claimed she would have been had her original asylum application been granted, is not capable of raising an issue under Article 3, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13. In this respect it is to be borne in mind that, although Article 3 may in certain circumstances imply the obligation not to expel a person (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 73-74, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2005-I), the protection afforded by Article 3 cannot be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to a residence permit (see Bonger v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 10154/04, 15 September 2005), let alone the right to a particular residence permit (see Ahmed Ali v. the Netherlands and Greece (dec.), no. 26494/09, § 19, 24 January 2012). - EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 26494/09
AHMED ALI v. THE NETHERLANDS AND GREECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 20651/11
The Court considers that the mere fact that the applicant will not be eligible for an indefinite residence permit in 2016, which she claimed she would have been had her original asylum application been granted, is not capable of raising an issue under Article 3, either taken alone or in conjunction with Article 13. In this respect it is to be borne in mind that, although Article 3 may in certain circumstances imply the obligation not to expel a person (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 73-74, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2005-I), the protection afforded by Article 3 cannot be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to a residence permit (see Bonger v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 10154/04, 15 September 2005), let alone the right to a particular residence permit (see Ahmed Ali v. the Netherlands and Greece (dec.), no. 26494/09, § 19, 24 January 2012).