Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LJATIFI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LJATIFI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA" - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LJATIFI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 7 Art. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16
• EGMR, 28.08.2019 - 19017/16

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  In addition, any interpretation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed has to be consistent with "the general spirit of the Convention, an instrument designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society"" (Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 87, Series A no. 161) and in the nature of the decision at issue in the present case.
• EGMR, 04.01.2005 - 10513/03

  NAUMOV v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  See, in this context, the earlier decision in Naumov v. Albania (Dec.), no 10513/03, 4 January 2005, in which the question whether "expulsion" could cover an unexecuted deportation order (arising out of an order depriving the applicant of his nationality) was left open with the Court declaring the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No 7 to the Convention inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded (rather than ratione materiae).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 58148/00

  ÉDITIONS PLON c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to the quantum (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 64, ECHR 2004-IV).

• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 1365/07

  Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Ausweisung, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  In the event of expulsion, in addition to the protection afforded by Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention, aliens lawfully resident in the territory of a State which has ratified Protocol No. 7 benefit from the specific guarantees provided in its Article 1 (see C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 1365/07, § 70, 24 April 2008).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 39270/98

  BELCHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  That is to say, the applicant must have paid them, or be bound to pay them, pursuant to a legal or contractual obligation, and they must have been unavoidable in order to prevent the violation found or to obtain redress (see Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 113, 8 April 2004, and Hajnal v. Serbia, no. 36937/06, § 154, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 33970/05

  KAYA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  Accordingly, they failed to subject the executive's assertion that the applicant posed a national security risk to meaningful scrutiny (see ibid., §§ 43 and 44; Lupsa, cited above, § 41; and Kaya v. Romania, no. 33970/05, § 42, 12 October 2006).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 53/12

  SAEED v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 19017/16

  Furthermore, there was no decision by any domestic authority by which the implementation of that order was suspended or the applicant granted leave to stay in the respondent State (see, conversely Saeed v. Denmark (dec.), no. 53/12, § 7, 24 June 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.05.2026 - 25828/23

  FAL c. ESPAGNE

  Those elements are equally relevant to the assessment of compliance with the procedural requirements of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 and indicate that those requirements were met (compare and contrast Ljatifi v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 19017/16, §§ 33-35, 17 May 2018; Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania [GC], no. 80982/12, §§ 203-06, 15 October 2020).