Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAGERGREN v. DENMARK

  Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  The case therefore differs from those in which the main obstacle to expulsion is the difficulty for the spouses to stay together (see for example Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX, and Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, 11 July 2002).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  In this connection the Court recall that besides the negative obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to refrain from measures which cause family ties to rupture, a positive obligation also exists to ensure that family life between parents and children can continue after divorce (see e.g. Cılız v. the Netherlands, no. 29192/95, § 62, ECHR 2000-VIII; and mutatis mutandis, Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, § 50).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  However, the removal of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of the right to respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see inter alia the Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 18, § 36).

• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 29192/95

  Ausländer, Aufenthaltserlaubnis, Ausweisung, Familienangehörige, Kinder, Schutz …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  In this connection the Court recall that besides the negative obligation under Article 8 of the Convention to refrain from measures which cause family ties to rupture, a positive obligation also exists to ensure that family life between parents and children can continue after divorce (see e.g. Cılız v. the Netherlands, no. 29192/95, § 62, ECHR 2000-VIII; and mutatis mutandis, Keegan v. Ireland, judgment of 26 May 1994, Series A no. 290, § 50).
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 36757/97

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  In the present case, the Court's task thus consists in ascertaining whether the Danish courts struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the applicant's right to respect for his family life with his children, on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder and crime, on the other (see Jakupovic v. Austria, no. 36757/97, § 26, 6 February 2003; Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, § 34, 11 July 2002; and Nwosu v. Denmark (dec.), no. 50359/99, 10 July 2001).
• EGMR, 10.04.2006 - 14474/03

  COMERT v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  Similar conclusions were reached in other cases, in which the crimes committed were considered equally serious (see, for example, Cömert v. Denmark (dec.) no. 14474/03, 10 April 2006).
• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 15017/03

  HUSSEIN MOSSI AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  Thus, in numerous cases involving drug offences, expulsion has been considered justified by weighty public order interest (see, inter alia, Mccalla v. United Kingdom (dec.) no. 30673/04, 31 May 2005, Najafi v. Sweden, (dec.) no. 28570/03, 6 July 2004, unreported, Hussain Mossi and Others v. Sweden, (dec.) 15017/03, 8 March 2005, unreported and Nwosu v. Denmark, cited above).
• EGMR, 06.07.2004 - 28570/03

  NAJAFI v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  Thus, in numerous cases involving drug offences, expulsion has been considered justified by weighty public order interest (see, inter alia, Mccalla v. United Kingdom (dec.) no. 30673/04, 31 May 2005, Najafi v. Sweden, (dec.) no. 28570/03, 6 July 2004, unreported, Hussain Mossi and Others v. Sweden, (dec.) 15017/03, 8 March 2005, unreported and Nwosu v. Denmark, cited above).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 50359/99

  NWOSU v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  In the present case, the Court's task thus consists in ascertaining whether the Danish courts struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the applicant's right to respect for his family life with his children, on the one hand, and the prevention of disorder and crime, on the other (see Jakupovic v. Austria, no. 36757/97, § 26, 6 February 2003; Amrollahi v. Denmark, no. 56811/00, § 34, 11 July 2002; and Nwosu v. Denmark (dec.), no. 50359/99, 10 July 2001).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 30673/04

  MCCALLA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2006 - 18668/03

  Thus, in numerous cases involving drug offences, expulsion has been considered justified by weighty public order interest (see, inter alia, Mccalla v. United Kingdom (dec.) no. 30673/04, 31 May 2005, Najafi v. Sweden, (dec.) no. 28570/03, 6 July 2004, unreported, Hussain Mossi and Others v. Sweden, (dec.) 15017/03, 8 March 2005, unreported and Nwosu v. Denmark, cited above).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• VGH Bayern, 17.07.2012 - 19 B 12.417

  Unanwendbarkeit des Vieraugenprinzips in Fällen assoziationsberechtigter …

  Ein entschlossenes Vorgehen gegen Personen, die zur Verbreitung von Drogen beitragen, liegt im öffentlichen Interesse (EGMR vom 7.8.1996 Bw-Nr. 21749/93, RdNr. 35, vom 16.10.2006 Bw.-Nr. 18668/03; vom 6.7.2004 Bw-Nr. 28570/03; die Entscheidung - vom 13.2.2001 Bw.-Nr. 47160/99 - auf die sich der Kläger relativierend beruft - betrifft einen Ausländer, der lediglich wegen des Gebrauchs von Drogen zu einer Freiheitsstrafe von zwei Jahren verurteilt worden ist, die Entscheidung - vom 15.7.2003 Bw.-Nr. 52206/99 InfAuslR 2004, 181 - einen Ausländer der zwar wegen Rauschgifthandels verurteilt worden ist, jedoch lediglich zu einer Freiheitsstrafe von vier Jahren - davon ein Jahr bedingt -, und der zum Zeitpunkt der Ausschöpfung der nationalen Rechtsmittel bereits seit vier Jahren, zum Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung des EGMR bereits seit acht Jahren mit einer französischen Staatsangehörigen zusammengelebt hat).
• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 57766/19

  LOUKILI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Thus, the fact that a convicted long-term settled migrant may be said to have been given one or more relatively lenient prison sentences - a combined one year and four months' imprisonment in the applicant's case - does not preclude a finding that an expulsion is, or would be, founded on important public order interests of the Contracting State (see, mutatis mutandis, Boughanemi v. France, 24 April 1996, Reports 1996-II; Lagergren v. Denmark (dec.), no. 18668/03, 16 October 2006; and Tran v. Norway (dec.), no. 34029/05, 14 June 2007).
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 58363/10

  M.E. v. DENMARK

  Hence the offences were extremely serious, a fact which had led the Court in numerous cases to find an expulsion justified by weighty interests of public order (see, inter alia, Lagergren v. Denmark (dec.), no. 18668/03, 16 October 2006, and Mccalla v the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30673/04, 31 May 2005).
• EGMR, 19.03.2026 - 15860/22

  HUSSAIN v. DENMARK

  Rn. 7 The Court also notes the numerous cases against Denmark concerning the expulsion of settled immigrants (see, among other authorities, Miari v. Denmark, no. 2852/24, 15 July 2025; Sharafane v. Denmark, no. 5199/23, 12 November 2024; Al-Habeeb v. Denmark, no. 14171/23, 12 November 2024; Savuran v. Denmark, no. 3645/23, 12 November 2024; Winther v. Denmark, no. 9588/21, 12 November 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, 5 September 2023; Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, 5 September 2023; Al-Masudi v. Denmark, no. 35740/21, 5 September 2023; Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, 30 November 2021; and Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, 14 September 2021), and concerning the expulsion of immigrants who entered the country as adults (see, for example, Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark, no. 25593/14, 23 October 2018; Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, 1 December 2016; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, 16 May 2017; Lagergren v. Denmark (dec.), no. 18668/03, 16 October 2006; and Bajrami v. Denmark (dec.) [Committee], no. 24379/20, 22 February 2022).
• EGMR, 14.06.2007 - 34029/05

  TRAN v. NORWAY

  However, the duration of the prison sentence at issue does not mean that his expulsion was not founded on important public order interests of the Contracting State (see, for instance, Boughanemi v. France, judgment of 24 April 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-II; Nwosu v. Denmark (dec.) no. 50359/99, 10 July 2001; Lagergren v. Denmark (dec.) no. 18668/03, 16 October 2006; Cömert v. Denmark (dec.) no. 14474/03, 10 April 2006).