Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ZAKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  The Government also referred to the criteria cited by the Court in Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII and argued that the applicant's exclusion had complied with them.

  As is acknowledged by the majority, the criteria to be generally applied in the case of the expulsion of an alien who has been convicted of a criminal offence are those that were set forth in Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII).

• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84

  BERREHAB v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  In their assessment of the proportionality of the interference, the national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation (see Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 21 June 1988, § 28, Series A no. 138).
• EGMR, 30.11.1999 - 34374/97

  BAGHLI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  Thus, the Court is not convinced by the applicant's arguments to the contrary and finds that the applicant had ties with Poland (see Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 48, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Samsonnikov, cited above, § 88).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02

  IORDACHI AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  The requirement that any interference is "in accordance with the law" is met when three conditions are satisfied: the impugned measure must have some basis in domestic law; the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned; and the person concerned must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 37, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  The requirement that any interference is "in accordance with the law" is met when three conditions are satisfied: the impugned measure must have some basis in domestic law; the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned; and the person concerned must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 37, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  Unlike the case of Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, 26 June 2014, where the applicant had not committed crimes using violence, in the present case both of the applicant's convictions had involved the use of violence and the second one had caused grievous bodily harm to the victim.

• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE

  [89] S.J. v. Belgium [GC], no. 70055/10, ECHR 2015, on the expulsion of a terminally ill alien; De Souza Ribeiro, cited above, on the expulsion of an undocumented alien; Hirsi Jamaa and Others, cited above, on the collective refoulement of asylum seekers on the high seas; Zakharchuk v. Russia, no. 2967/12, 17 December 2019, on the expulsion of a young alien convicted of grievous bodily harm; M. A. v. Lithuania, no. 59793/17, 11 December 2018, on refoulement of asylum seeker at the land border; Vasquez v. Switzerland, no. 1785/08, 26 November 2013, on the administrative expulsion of an alien convicted of a sexual offence, although the criminal court had suspended the expulsion penalty; Kissiwa Koffi v. Switzerland, no. 38005/07, 15 November 2012, on the expulsion of an alien convicted of drug trafficking; and Shala v. Switzerland, no. 52873/09, 15 November 2012, on the expulsion of an alien convicted of several minor offences.