Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KONSTATINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 50435/99

  Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Abschiebung, Duldung, unerlaubter Aufenthalt, Kinder

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 16351/03

  The Court has previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).

• BVerwG, 17.12.2020 - 1 C 30.19

  Nachzug zu einem subsidiär Schutzberechtigten bei Eheschließung nach Verlassen …

  Als private Interessen sind in die Abwägung einzustellen unter anderem das Ausmaß, in dem das Familienleben bei einer Versagung des Zuzugs tatsächlich unterbrochen würde, das Ausmaß der Bindungen im Bundesgebiet wie auch im Herkunftsstaat bzw. in einem aufnehmenden Drittstaat, insbesondere die Dauer des Aufenthalts der jeweiligen Familienangehörigen, der aufenthaltsrechtliche Status (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 26. April 2007 - Nr. 16351/03, Konstatinov/Niederlande - Rn. 49 und EGMR , Urteil vom 3. Oktober 2014 - Nr. 12738/10, Jeunesse/Niederlande - Rn. 108), eine etwaige wirtschaftliche (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 26. April 2007 - Nr. 16351/03, Konstatinov/Niederlande - Rn. 49), soziale, kulturelle und sprachliche (…vgl. EGMR , Urteil vom 21. September 2016 - Nr. 38030/12, Khan/Deutschland - Rn. 40) Integration im Bundesgebiet und das Bestehen etwaiger (unüberwindbarer) rechtlicher oder tatsächlicher Hindernisse für ein Leben der Familie in ihrem Herkunftsland oder in einem aufenthaltsgewährenden Drittland (…vgl. EGMR, Entscheidung vom 8. März 2016 - Nr. 25960/13, I.A.A. u.a./Vereinigtes Königreich - Rn. 43 ff. …und Urteil vom 8. November 2016 - Nr. 56971/10, El Ghatet/Schweiz - Rn. 45).
• EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18

  Familiennachzug bei subsidiärem Schutz: Kompromiss zwischen Menschenrechten und …

  En pareil cas, ce n'est en principe que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles que l'éloignement du membre de la famille ressortissant d'un pays tiers emporte violation de l'article 8 (voir, parmi de nombreux autres, Jeunesse, précité, § 108, Abdulaziz, Cabales et Balkandali, précité, Bouchelkia c. France, arrêt du 29 janvier 1997, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1997-I, Baghli c. France, no 34374/97, CEDH 1999-VIII, Konstatinov c. Pays-Bas, no 16351/03, 26 avril 2007, Darren Omoregie et autres c. Norvège, no 265/07, 31 juillet 2008, Antwi et autres c. Norvège, no 26940/10, 14 février 2012, et Priya c. Danemark (déc.) no 13594/03, 6 juillet 2016).
• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 13258/18

  B.F. AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

  In so far as the applicants appeared to challenge the requirement of financial independence in family reunification cases, the Government emphasised that the Court had previously recognised that the entry and stay of foreign nationals could legitimately be limited on considerations of the economic wellbeing of the country (they referred to Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 50, 26 April 2007, and Hasanbasic v. Switzerland, no. 52166/09, § 59, 11 June 2013).

  In such a situation, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see, among many others, Jeunesse, cited above, § 108; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, cited above; Bouchelkia v. France, judgment of 29 January 1997, Reports 1997-I; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, 26 April 2007; Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, 31 July 2008; Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, 14 February 2012; and Priya v. Denmark (dec.) no. 3594/03, 6 July 2016).

 
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 12510/18

  DABO v. SWEDEN

  In such a situation, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see, among many others, Jeunesse, cited above, § 108; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, cited above; Bouchelkia v. France, judgment of 29 January 1997, Reports 1997-I; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, 26 April 2007; Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, 31 July 2008; Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, 14 February 2012; and Priya v. Denmark (dec.) no. 3594/03, 6 July 2016).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 72586/11

  E.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  As regards the applicant's family life with his children, all of whom have come of age, it is the Court's well-established case-law that relationships between parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; and Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; and A.A.Q. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 42331/05, § 64 30 June 2015).
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 25402/14

  PORMES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court has further laid down as a general rule that relationships between adult relatives do not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without further elements of dependency involving more than the normal emotional ties (see, for instance, Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007, and Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  AZERKANE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In its case-law in immigration cases, the Court has laid down as a general rule that relationships between adult relatives do not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without further elements of dependency involving more than the normal emotional ties (see, for instance, Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007, and Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA

  On a number of occasions the Court has stated that relationships between parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, among many other authorities, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XIV; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.N v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 78228/14

  ALIYEV v. UKRAINE

  As a general rule, relationships between adult relatives do not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without further elements of dependency involving more than the normal emotional ties (see, for example, Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007, and Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  YESHTLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court notes that Y had already come of age when the applicant applied for housing benefit for 2006 and reiterates the Court's well-established case-law in immigration cases that relationships between adult relatives do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017 and E.P. v. the Netherlands and A.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 42331/05

  A.A.Q. v. THE NETHERLANDS