Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARARA v. FINLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 Buchst. c, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  The Commission recalls, however, that this possibility does not absolve an applicant from the obligation of raising the relevant complaint at least in substance before those courts (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200; No. 11244/87, Dec. 2.3.87, D.R. 55, p. 98; No. 11425/85, Dec. 5.10.87, D.R. 53, p. 76; No. 11921/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 57, p. 81; No. 7367/76, Dec. 10.3.77, D.R. 8, p. 185).
• EKMR, 12.10.1988 - 11921/86

  KONTAKT-INFORMATION-THERAPIE AND HAGEN v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  The Commission recalls, however, that this possibility does not absolve an applicant from the obligation of raising the relevant complaint at least in substance before those courts (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200; No. 11244/87, Dec. 2.3.87, D.R. 55, p. 98; No. 11425/85, Dec. 5.10.87, D.R. 53, p. 76; No. 11921/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 57, p. 81; No. 7367/76, Dec. 10.3.77, D.R. 8, p. 185).
• EKMR, 19.05.1994 - 23634/94

  TANKO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  In any such contexts the Commission must subject all the circumstances surrounding the case to a rigorous scrutiny, especially the applicant's personal situation in the deporting State (ibid., pp. 792-793, paras. 49-50; No. 23634/94, Dec. 19.5.94, D.R. 77-A, p. 133).

 
• EKMR, 05.10.1987 - 11425/85

  SCHLUMPF contre la France

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  The Commission recalls, however, that this possibility does not absolve an applicant from the obligation of raising the relevant complaint at least in substance before those courts (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200; No. 11244/87, Dec. 2.3.87, D.R. 55, p. 98; No. 11425/85, Dec. 5.10.87, D.R. 53, p. 76; No. 11921/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 57, p. 81; No. 7367/76, Dec. 10.3.77, D.R. 8, p. 185).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  The Commission recalls that the expulsion of a person from a country in which close members of his family live may amount to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, pp. 19-20, paras. 43-46).
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84

  CARDOT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  The Commission recalls, however, that this possibility does not absolve an applicant from the obligation of raising the relevant complaint at least in substance before those courts (see, e.g., Eur. Court HR, Cardot v. France judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200; No. 11244/87, Dec. 2.3.87, D.R. 55, p. 98; No. 11425/85, Dec. 5.10.87, D.R. 53, p. 76; No. 11921/86, Dec. 12.10.88, D.R. 57, p. 81; No. 7367/76, Dec. 10.3.77, D.R. 8, p. 185).
• EKMR, 19.03.1981 - 8118/77

  OMKARANANDA et DIVINE LIGHT ZENTRUM c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  (a) The Commission recalls its constant case-law according to which Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention has no application to asylum, expulsion, deportation proceedings or the like (see, e.g., No. 8118/77, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25, p. 105, and No. 9990/92, Dec. 15.5.84, D.R. 39, p. 119).
• EKMR, 14.10.1985 - 10600/83

  JOHANSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  The Commission finds that Judge H's decision to prolong the applicant's detention for deportation purposes did not involve any determination of his "civil rights or obligations" or of any "criminal charge" against him (cf. Keus v. the Netherlands, Comm. Report 4.10.89, paras. 82-83, Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 185-C, pp. 80-81; No. 10600/83, Dec. 14.10.85, D.R. 44, pp. 155, 164).
• EKMR, 17.05.1985 - 11333/85

  C. v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

  Auszug aus EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

  Whether removal 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 such as whether there are insurmountable obstacles to taking up family life in another country (cf., e.g., No. 11333/85, Dec. 17.5.85, D.R. 43, p. 227).

• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  36. In Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998, the applicant, a citizen of Uganda, had been treated in Finland for an.

  ..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.