Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 32339/96 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GORMAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EKMR, 06.07.1982 - 9285/81
X., Y. et Z. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 32339/96
The Commission recalls according to its established case-law that while Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention does not in itself guarantee a right to enter or remain in a particular country, issues may arise where a person is excluded, or removed from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside (see eg. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9, p. 219; No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 8.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205).Whether removal or exclusion of a family member from a Contracting State is incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 (Art. 8) will depend on a number of factors: the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them, whether there are factors of immigration control (eg. history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order (eg. serious or persistent offences) weighing in favour of exclusion (see eg. Nos. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205 and 11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87 unpublished).
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 32339/96
The Court has held that Article 8 (Art. 8) does not impose a general obligation on States to respect the choice of residence of a married couple or to accept the non-national spouse for settlement in that country (Eur. Court HR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 94, para. 68). - EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 32339/96
(Eur. Court HR, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
- EKMR, 19.05.1977 - 7816/77
X. et Y. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 32339/96
The Commission recalls according to its established case-law that while Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention does not in itself guarantee a right to enter or remain in a particular country, issues may arise where a person is excluded, or removed from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside (see eg. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9, p. 219; No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 8.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205). - EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 9088/80
X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 32339/96
The Commission recalls according to its established case-law that while Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention does not in itself guarantee a right to enter or remain in a particular country, issues may arise where a person is excluded, or removed from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside (see eg. No. 7816/77, Dec. 19.5.77, D.R. 9, p. 219; No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160 and No. 9285/81, Dec. 8.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205). - EKMR, 13.07.1987 - 11970/86
O. and O. L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 32339/96
Whether removal or exclusion of a family member from a Contracting State is incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 (Art. 8) will depend on a number of factors: the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them, whether there are factors of immigration control (eg. history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order (eg. serious or persistent offences) weighing in favour of exclusion (see eg. Nos. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205 and 11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87 unpublished).