Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O.G.O. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 4, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+4, Art. 13+8, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  O.G.O. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 4, Art. 4 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 36732/97

  PISANO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 13950/12

  The Court reiterates that the general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002, Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 28692/06, 3 March 2009, and Youssef v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 11936/08, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 03.03.2009 - 28692/06

  VOORHUIS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 13950/12

  The Court reiterates that the general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002, Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 28692/06, 3 March 2009, and Youssef v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 11936/08, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 11936/08

  YOUSSEF v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 13950/12

  The Court reiterates that the general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, §§ 53-54, 24 October 2002, Voorhuis v. the Netherlands (dec.), no 28692/06, 3 March 2009, and Youssef v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 11936/08, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 49113/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2014 - 13950/12

  In this regard, it notes that the applicant is no longer at risk of being removed from the United Kingdom as she has been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (see, among other examples, L.R. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 49113/09, 14 June 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 43611/11

  F.G. v. SWEDEN

  The Court observes that, according to its established case-law, in cases concerning the expulsion of an applicant from a respondent State, once the applicant has been granted a residence permit and no longer risks being expelled from that State, the Court considers the case to have been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and strikes it out of its list of cases, regardless of whether the applicant agrees (see, inter alia, M.E. v. Sweden, cited above, § 32; H v. Norway (dec.), no. 51666/13, 17 February 2015; I.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 76660/12, 27 May 2014; O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, 18 February 2014; Isman v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 23604/11, 21 January 2014; M.A. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28361/12, 19 November 2013; A.G. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 22107/08, 6 December 2011; and Sarwari v. Austria (dec.), no. 21662/10, 3 November 2011).

  According to the Court's established case-law in cases concerning the expulsion of an applicant from a respondent State, once the applicant has been granted a residence permit and no longer risks being expelled from that State, the Court considers the case to have been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and strikes it out of its list of cases, regardless of whether the applicant agrees (see, inter alia, M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, § 32, 8 April 2015; H v. Norway (dec.) no. 51666/13, 17 February 2015; I.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 76660/12, 27 May 2014; O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, 18 February 2014; Isman v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 23604/11, 21 January 2014; M.A. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28361/12, 19 November 2013; A.G. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 22107/08, 6 December 2011; and Sarwari v. Austria (dec.), no. 21662/10, 3 November 2011).

• EGMR, 08.04.2015 - 71398/12

  M.E. v. SWEDEN

  La Cour observe d'emblée que, conformément à sa jurisprudence constante dans les affaires concernant l'expulsion d'un requérant d'un État défendeur, elle considère, dès lors que l'intéressé ne risque plus d'être expulsé de cet État, que l'affaire a été résolue, et elle la raye de son rôle, que le requérant approuve ou non cette décision (voir, entre autres, Paez c. Suède, 30 octobre 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VII, Sarwari c. Autriche (déc.), no 21662/10, 3 novembre 2011, M.A. c. Suède (déc.), no 28361/12, 19 novembre 2013, 1sman c. Suisse (déc.), no 23604/11, 21 janvier 2014, 0.G.O. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 13950/12, 18 février 2014, et I.A. c Pays-Bas (déc.), no 76660/12, 27 mai 2014).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  H.P. v. DENMARK

  The Court points out, however, that its finding in Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia is fully in line with its decisions to strike out numerous deportation cases as having being resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention, once the applicant has been granted a residence permit and no longer risks being expelled from the relevant State, whether or not the applicant agrees, and whether or not the applicant has been very active in applying for asylum or a residence permit (see, inter alia, M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, § 32, 8 April 2015; W.H. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 49341/10, § 29, 8 April 2015; Nasseri v. the United Kingdom (dec.), § 18, no. 24239/09, 13 October 2015; H v. Norway (dec.) no. 51666/13, 17 February 2015; Girmay v. Sweden (dec.), 80545/12, 8 July 2014; O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, 18 February 2014; M.A. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28361/12, 19 November 2013; S.H. v the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47607/07, 5 March 2013; Asgari v. Austria (dec.), no. 62154/10, 29 January 2013; A.G. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 22107/08, 6 December 2011; Sarwari v. Austria (dec.), no. 21662/10, 3 November 2011; and Borisov v. Lithuania, no. 9958/04, §§ 112-114, 14 June 2011).

• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 16177/14

  J.W. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In this regard, the Court notes that it has found on many occasions that a matter had been resolved or that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of an application when it appeared that an applicant would not be expelled, either because a residence permit had been granted (see, for instance, O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, § 25, 18 February 2014, and Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003), because a fresh determination by the domestic authorities of the applicant's particular circumstances was pending (see, for instance, Sharifi v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 69486/11, 4 December 2012, and F.I. and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 8655/10, 15 March 2011), or because it was not possible to remove the applicant to his or her country of origin (see I.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no.76660/12, § 20, 27 May 2014, and Isman v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 23604/11, § 24, 21 January 2014).
• EGMR, 21.02.2017 - 18209/15

  X c. GRÈCE

  La Cour observe d'emblée que, conformément à sa jurisprudence constante dans les affaires concernant l'expulsion d'un requérant d'un État défendeur, elle considère, dès lors que l'intéressé ne risque plus d'être expulsé de cet État, que le « litige a été résolu'au sens de l'article 37 § 1 b) de la Convention, et elle raye l'affaire de son rôle, que le requérant approuve ou non cette décision (voir, entre autres, M.E. c.Suède (radiation) [GC], no 71398/12, 8 avril 2015, Paez c. Suède, 30 octobre 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VII, Sarwari c. Autriche (déc.), no 21662/10, 3 novembre 2011, M.A. c. Suède (déc.), no 28361/12, 19 novembre 2013, Isman c. Suisse (déc.), no 23604/11, 21 janvier 2014, O.G.O. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 13950/12, 18 février 2014, et I.A. c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 76660/12, 27 mai 2014).
• EGMR, 23.04.2019 - 18784/15

  K.A. c. GRÈCE

  La Cour observe d'emblée que, conformément à sa jurisprudence constante dans les affaires concernant l'expulsion d'un requérant d'un État défendeur, elle considère, dès lors que l'intéressé ne risque plus d'être expulsé de cet État, que le « litige a été résolu'au sens de l'article 37 § 1 b) de la Convention, et elle raye l'affaire de son rôle, que le requérant approuve ou non cette décision (voir, entre autres, M.E. c. Suède (radiation) [GC], no 71398/12, 8 avril 2015, Paez c. Suède, 30 octobre 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-VII, Sarwari c. Autriche (déc.), no 21662/10, 3 novembre 2011, M.A. c. Suède (déc.), no 28361/12, 19 novembre 2013, Isman c. Suisse (déc.), no 23604/11, 21 janvier 2014, O.G.O. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 13950/12, 18 février 2014, et I.A. c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 76660/12, 27 mai 2014).
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 11994/05

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that the general principles governing reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, § 276, 3 October 2008; and, most recently, O.G.O. v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, 18 February 2014).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 81681/12

  R.M. v. TURKEY

  In those circumstances, the Court considers that the matter giving rise to this part of the application has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 73, ECHR 2016 and the cases cited therein, in particular, M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, §§ 34-35, 8 April 2015; O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, 18 February 2014; and also, M.M. v. Finland (dec.), no. 72861/11, 3 September 2013; K.S. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 51315/12, 21 January 2014; and V.K. v. Finland (dec.), no. 26112/13, 31 March 2015).
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 24239/09

  NASSERI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Nevertheless, in the recent case of M.E. v. Sweden (striking out) [GC], no. 71398/12, 8 April 2015, in which a procedural violation of Article 3 was also alleged, the Court made it clear that, according to its established case-law in cases concerning the expulsion of an applicant from a respondent State, once the applicant no longer risks being expelled from that State, it considers the case to have been resolved and should strike it out of its list of cases, whether or not the applicant agrees; the reason for this being that the Court has consistently approached the underlying issue as one of a potential violation of the Convention, on the view that the threat of a violation is removed by virtue of the decision granting the applicant a right of residence in the respondent State concerned (see, among other authorities, Paez v. Sweden, 30 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII; Sarwari v. Austria (dec.), no. 21662/10, 3 November 2011; M.A. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 28361/12, 19 November 2013; Isman v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 23604/11, 21 January 2014; O.G.O. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 13950/12, 18 February 2014; and I.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 76660/12, 27 May 2014).