Rechtsprechung
| EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
JARAMILLO v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 2, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f MRK
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EKMR, 13.07.1987 - 11970/86
O. and O. L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94
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 Nos. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205 and 11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87, unpublished).While the applicant has argued that weight should be given to his British citizenship, the Commission notes that in previous cases the factor of the citizenship has not been considered of particular significance (eg. No. 11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87, unpublished, where the Commission found it compatible with Article 8 (Art. 8) to expect children of unlawful overstayers to follow their parents even if they had acquired theoretical rights of abode in the deporting country).
- EKMR, 06.07.1982 - 9285/81
X., Y. et Z. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94
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, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94
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 H.R., Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali 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, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94
It only applies if the individual can be said to have an "arguable claim" of a violation of the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52). - EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94
In this assessment of whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment, Contracting States enjoy a margin of appreciation which will vary according to the circumstances, subject- matter and background (see eg. Eur. Court H.R., Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 66-67, para. 177). - EKMR, 19.05.1977 - 7816/77
X. et Y. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94
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, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94
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).
- EGMR, 25.03.2004 - 16870/03
VIKULOV ET AUTRES c. LETTONIE
Ainsi, dans plusieurs affaires, les organes de la Convention ont reconnu que, même si l'expulsion des intéressés du pays d'accueil les empêchait d'y poursuivre leurs études, cette mesure ne pouvait pas s'analyser, en elle-même, en une atteinte à leur droit à l'instruction au sens de l'article 2 du Protocole no 1 (voir Sorabjee c. Royaume-Uni, no 23938/94, et Jaramillo c. Royaume-Uni, no 24865/94, décisions de la Commission du 23 octobre 1995, ainsi que Dabhi c. Royaume-Uni, no 28627/95, décision de la Commission du 17 janvier 1997). - EKMR, 12.01.1998 - 26336/95
ABOIKONIE ET READ c. PAYS-BAS
23938/94 and 24865/94, Dec. - EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 26985/95
POKU AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
23938/94 Sorabjee v. the United Kingdom, dec. 23.10.95 and 24865/94 Jaramillo v. the United Kingdom dec. 23.10.95, where the Commission found no material distinction as to whether the children had acquired citizenship by ius soli or ius sanguinis).