Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDI IBRAHIM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 14535/10

  On the other hand, the mere fact of return to a country where one's economic position will be worse than in a Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010 and, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, 27 May 2008).

  In the absence of exceptionally compelling humanitarian grounds against removal, the fact that the applicant's circumstances, including his life expectancy, would be significantly reduced if he were to be removed from the Contracting State is not sufficient in itself to give rise to breach of Article 3 (see N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, ECHR 2008; see also Sufi and Elmi, cited above, § 282).

• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 14535/10

  It is settled case-law that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-....; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 34, § 67, Boujlifa v. France, judgment of 21 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI, p. 2264, § 42).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 14535/10

  Although many of the rights it contains have implications of a social or economic nature, the Convention is essentially directed at the protection of civil and political rights (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 26).

 
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 14535/10

  This in turn must be considered in the light of the general situation there as well as the applicant's personal circumstances (Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, § 108).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 14535/10

  These standards imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case (Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07

  MIAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 14535/10

  On the other hand, the mere fact of return to a country where one's economic position will be worse than in a Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010 and, mutatis mutandis, N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 42, 27 May 2008).

• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 3202/09

  F.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The mere fact of return to a country where the applicant's economic position will be worse than in a Contracting State is not sufficient to meet the threshold of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 14, 27 April 2010 and Abdi Ibrahim v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 14535/10, § 31, 18 September 2012).