Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (18)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  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 by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 43279/98

  SARUMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  Another important consideration is whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would from the outset be precarious (see Jerry Olajide Sarumi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43279/98, 26 January 1999; and Andrey Sheabashov v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  Referring to the Court's judgment in Liu and Liu v. Russia (no. 42086/05, § 66, 6 December 2007), they argued that this interference was unlawful, did not pursue any legitimate aims and was not necessary in a democratic society.

• EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 44328/98

  SOLOMON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  Factors to be taken into account in this context are the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, the extent of the ties in the Contracting State, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one or more of them, whether there are factors of immigration control (for instance, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  MITCHELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  Where this is the case the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, § 68; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; and Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).
• EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 50065/99

  SHEBASHOV contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  Another important consideration is whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would from the outset be precarious (see Jerry Olajide Sarumi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43279/98, 26 January 1999; and Andrey Sheabashov v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  AJAYI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  Where this is the case the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, § 68; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; and Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  According to the Court's settled case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no. 161; Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 103; Ahmed, cited above, § 39; H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-III; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 38, ECHR 2000-VIII; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007; and Saadi, cited above, § 125).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  It is the Court's settled case-law that as a matter of well-established international law, and subject to their treaty obligations, including those arising from the Convention, Contracting States have the right to control the entry, residence and removal of aliens (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94, and Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2011 - 30696/09

  Belgische Behörden hätten Asylbewerber nicht nach Griechenland abschieben dürfen

  Only in exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis, did Belgium avail itself of the derogation from these principles provided for in Article 3 § 2 of the Regulation, and only where the person concerned showed convincingly that he was at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3. Indeed, that approach was consistent with the Court's case-law, which required there to be a link between the general situation complained of and the applicant's individual situation (as in the cases of Sultani, cited above, Thampibillai v. the Netherlands, no. 61350/00, 17 February 2004, and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, 4 December 2008).

  3 The Court's case-law required there to be a link between the general situation complained of and the applicant's individual situation (Thampibillai v. the Netherlands, no. 61350/00, 17 February 2004, and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, 4 December 2008).

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  The Court regards the relevant information submitted by applicants to the immigration authorities as an integral part justifying their claims of a fear of treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, §§ 87-88, 4 December 2008; Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, §§ 132-13, 5 June 2012; and Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, §§ 85-87, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  [ENG]

  That being said, the Court, having due regard to the fact that the most fundamental values - the applicant's health, well-being and life - are at stake in the present case, does not consider that it would be reasonable or compatible with the humanitarian considerations which are compelling for a proper examination of complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2004-XII; N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 43, 27 May 2008; and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, § 94, 4 December 2008) to find that the fact that a better domestic remedy has been introduced subsequent to the introduction of the present application should render the applicant's complaint of lack of adequate medical care in prison inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in its entirety (compare, a contrario, with a number of cases raising various merely pecuniary interests, where domestic remedies were set up after the introduction, as a result of the Court's instructions to that end in its "pilot" judgments, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 140-149, ECHR 2006-V; Icyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 73-87, 12 January 2006; but also contrast with Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2004).

• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 37610/18

  Polen darf Häftling nicht nach China ausliefern

  The applicant further argued that the facts of his case should be differentiated from cases involving the expulsion or deportation to China of unsuccessful asylum seekers, to which the Government referred in their observations (see Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, 4 December 2008, and Y.L. v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 53110/16, 26 September 2017).
• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 46086/07

  [ENG]

  For a summary of the relevant provisions see Y. v. Russia (no. 20113/07, 4 December 2008).
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 26876/08

  [ENG]

  Since she has not yet been extradited, owing to an indication by the Court of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the material date for the assessment of that risk is that of the Court's consideration of the case (for an overview of the relevant case-law on this matter see, for example, Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, §§ 74-82, 4 December 2008, with further references).
• EGMR, 11.02.2010 - 11870/03

  [ENG]

  Although such behaviour is open to serious reproach, this case should be distinguished from others where the Court considered that the persons concerned could not at any time have reasonably expected to be able to continue family life in the host country (see, for example, Jerry Olajide Sarumi v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43279/98, 26 January 1999, and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, § 105, 4 December 2008).