Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARAC v. DENMARK

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SARAC v. DENMARK

  [ENG]

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2025, 483

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  Rn. 14 The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).

  Rn. 25 The Court finds it established that there was an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8, that the expulsion order and the re-entry ban were "in accordance with the law" and that they pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime (see also, for example, Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 61, 1 December 2016).

• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 44810/20

  NOORZAE v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  As a result of the amendment, when making a subsequent review of whether an expulsion order should be revoked, the Danish courts are now able to impose a re-entry ban for a shorter period than that previously specified, irrespective of when the criminal offence was committed, if they find, at the time of the review, that a shortening of the period is required to ensure that the expulsion order falls within the scope of Denmark's international obligations (see also, inter alia, Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, §§ 13-15, 5 September 2023).

  The Court will therefore examine the case only under the private life aspect of Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 24, 5 September 2023).

• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 40601/05

  Rechtssache M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34, 13 February 2001; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 59, 27 October 2005; and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the persons in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).

• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34, 13 February 2001; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 59, 27 October 2005; and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the persons in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  Rn. 14 The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34, 13 February 2001; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 59, 27 October 2005; and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the persons in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 31434/21

  SHARIFI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when assessing the applicant's case (see Noorzae, cited above, § 25 and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  SHARAFANE v. DENMARK

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when they assessed the applicant's case (see, also, Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 27, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 28, 9 April 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 25, 5 September 2023; and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 14171/23

  AL-HABEEB v. DENMARK

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when they assessed the applicant's case (see also Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 27, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 28, 9 April 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 25, 5 September 2023; and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).
• EGMR, 21.10.2025 - 16756/24

  MORTENSEN v. DENMARK

  As regards the proceedings before it, regard being had to the documents in its possession, the above criteria and to awards made in comparable cases against Denmark (see, among other authorities, Kalkan v. Denmark, no. 51781/22, § 138, 27 May 2025; Daugaard Sorensen v. Denmark, no. 25650/22, § 81, 15 October 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 49, 9 April 2024; Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 48, 9 April 2024; and El-Asmar v. Denmark, no. 27753/19, § 88, 3 October 2023), the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 10, 000 covering the costs for the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in so far as these have not already been compensated for under the Danish Legal Aid Act.
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 3645/23

  SAVURAN v. DENMARK

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when assessing the applicant's case (see also, Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 27, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 28, 9 April 2024; Noorzae, cited above, § 25, and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 9588/21

  WINTHER v. DENMARK

  Rn. 38 With regard to the criterion of "the length of the applicant's stay in the country from which he or she is to be expelled", the Supreme Court duly took into account the fact that the applicant had entered Denmark as a 20-year-old adult, and that he had lawfully resided there for less than four years when the offences were committed (see, also mutatis mutandis, Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 30, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 30, 9 April 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 28, 5 September 2023; and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 28, 5 September 2023).