Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAJRAMI v. DENMARK

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  Relevant domestic law 16. The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail, for example in Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 22-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark, (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).

  In a case like the present one, where the person to be expelled had founded a family of his own, the principles to be applied have been set out in, for example, Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 64, 1 December 2016.

• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 41215/14

  NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  The Court points out in this connection that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, although opinions may differ on the outcome of a judgment, "where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts" (see, among many others, Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017 and Levakovic v. Denmark, no. 7841/14, § 45, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 7841/14

  LEVAKOVIC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  The Court points out in this connection that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, although opinions may differ on the outcome of a judgment, "where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts" (see, among many others, Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017 and Levakovic v. Denmark, no. 7841/14, § 45, 23 October 2018).

• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 40601/05

  Rechtssache M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  In the present case, however, the Court does not call into question that the first applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see also, inter alia, Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 53, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  Thus in the cases, for example, Ezzouhdi v. France (no. 47160/99, § 34 13 February 2001), Keles v. Germany (no. 32231/02, § 66, 27 October 2005), and Bousarra v. France (no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010), given the specific circumstances in each case, the Court found the imposition of a definitive expulsion order in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  In the present case, however, the Court does not call into question that the first applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see also, inter alia, Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 53, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  Relevant domestic law 16. The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail, for example in Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 22-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark, (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 25593/14

  ASSEM HASSAN ALI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  The Court reiterates in this respect that it has held, on many previous occasions, that it understands - in view of the devastating effects drugs have on people's lives and on society as a whole - why the authorities show great firmness to those who actively contribute to the spread of this scourge (see, among others, Salem v. Denmark, cited above, § 66 and Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark, no. 25593/14, § 47, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 6222/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 24379/20

  However, apart from observing that such statements cannot be considered established facts, on the basis of the other material before it, the Court is not convinced that the first applicant's children's best interests were adversely affected by his deportation to such an extent that those should outweigh the other criteria to be taken into account (see, for example, A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 6222/10, § 40, 20 December 2011; Salem v Denmark, cited above, § 78; and Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark, cited above § 61).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 06.09.2022 - 56700/15

  SANCHES PINA v. PORTUGAL

  The applicant did not submit any relevant details concerning his relationship with this son and did not argue before the domestic courts or the Court that his expulsion and re-entry ban were contrary to his children's best interests and well-being (see, Üner, cited above, § 58; and compare A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 6222/10, § 40, 20 December 2011; and Bajrami v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24379/20, §§ 28-33, 20 February 2022).