Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion were recently set out in detail in Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016.

  The Court has recently examined the proceedings under section 50, subsection 1, of the Aliens Act and noted (see Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 56, 1 December 2016) that this remedy empowers the domestic courts to rescind the expulsion decision included in the original judgment.

• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  The relevant criteria to be applied in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society were set out, inter alia, in Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII), Maslov v. Austria ([GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008), Balogun v. the United Kingdom (no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012) and Samsonnikov v. Estonia, (no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  From the outset it reaffirms that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94).

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 39350/13

  A.S. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  In respect of the two eldest, who were of age, the Court reiterates that relations between parents and adult children do not constitute family life for the purpose of Article 8 unless the applicant can demonstrate additional elements of dependence (see, for example, A.S. v. Switzerland, no. 39350/13, § 49, 30 June 2015 and F.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, § 36, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  The relevant criteria to be applied in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society were set out, inter alia, in Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII), Maslov v. Austria ([GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008), Balogun v. the United Kingdom (no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012) and Samsonnikov v. Estonia, (no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  The relevant criteria to be applied in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society were set out, inter alia, in Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII), Maslov v. Austria ([GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008), Balogun v. the United Kingdom (no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012) and Samsonnikov v. Estonia, (no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 10.04.2006 - 14474/03

  COMERT v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  Furthermore, as case-law has shown, in such cases the nature and seriousness of the offence committed or the offending history may weigh heavy in the overall assessment (see, for example, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], cited above, §§ 62-64 and Cömert v. Denmark (dec.), 14474/03, 10 April 2006).
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 3202/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  In respect of the two eldest, who were of age, the Court reiterates that relations between parents and adult children do not constitute family life for the purpose of Article 8 unless the applicant can demonstrate additional elements of dependence (see, for example, A.S. v. Switzerland, no. 39350/13, § 49, 30 June 2015 and F.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, § 36, 17 September 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 23887/16

  MZI c. SUISSE

  En revanche, s'il s'avère que les autorités internes ont procédé à un examen suffisant et convaincant des faits et considérations pertinents, y englobant une pesée adéquate entre les intérêts personnels du requérant et les intérêts plus généraux de la société, il n'appartient pas à la Cour de se substituer à l'appréciation faite par celles-ci, y compris par rapport à l'examen de la proportionnalité de la mesure litigieuse, sauf s'il existe des raisons importantes pour le faire (voir, dans ce sens, Ndidi c. Royaume-Uni, no 41215/14, § 76, 14 septembre 2017, Hamesevic c. Danemark (déc.), no 25748/15, § 43, 16 mai 2017 and Alam c. Danemark (déc.), no 33809/15, § 35, 6 juin 2017).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 14065/15

  Lacatus ./. Schweiz - Bettelverbot unverhältnismäßig

  La Cour rappelle également que dès lors que les conclusions des autorités n'apparaissent ni arbitraires ni manifestement déraisonnables, il ne lui appartient pas de se substituer à l'appréciation faite par elles, y compris par rapport à l'examen de la proportionnalité de la mesure litigieuse (voir, dans ce sens, Von Hannover c. Allemagne (no 2) [GC], nos 40660/08 et 60641/08, § 105, CEDH 2012, Hamesevic c. Danemark (déc.), no 25748/15, § 43, 16 mai 2017, Alam c. Danemark (déc.), no 33809/15, § 35, 6 juin 2017, Ndidi c. Royaume-Uni, no 41215/14, § 76, 14 septembre 2017, et Levakovic c. Danemark, no 7841/14, § 45, 23 octobre 2018).
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 57467/15

  SAVRAN v. DENMARK

  Accordingly, in so far as the complaint under Article 8 relates to the original expulsion order set out in the judgments in the criminal proceedings, it has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see, for example, Hamsevic v Denmark (dec.), 25748/15, § 28, 16 May 2017).

• EGMR, 15.03.2018 - 51357/07

  NAÏT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND

  See, inter alia, Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 61, ECHR 2015; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017; Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017; Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 33-34 and 38, 21 March 2000; Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007; Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013); Anheuser-Buch Inc.
• EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 59006/18

  MISA CARRERA c. SUISSE

  La Cour rappelle également que, dans des affaires récentes concernant la conformité à l'article 8 de l'éloignement d'« immigrés établis ", elle a dit que lorsque les juridictions internes ont soigneusement examiné les faits et appliqué la jurisprudence des organes de la Convention et qu'elles ont dûment mis en balance l'intérêt particulier du requérant et l'intérêt public de la collectivité, il ne lui appartient pas de substituer sa propre appréciation du fond de l'affaire à celle des autorités nationales compétentes (notamment en ce qui concerne les éléments factuels de la proportionnalité), à moins qu'il n'y ait de bonnes raisons de le faire (Ndidi c. Royaume-Uni, no 41215/14, § 76, 14 septembre 2017, Saber et Boughassal, précité, § 41, et Hamesevic c. Danemark (déc.), no 25748/15, §§ 31-46, 16 mai 2017).
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 41215/14

  NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Consequently, in two recent cases concerning the expulsion of settled migrants, the Court declined to substitute its conclusions for those of the domestic courts, which had thoroughly assessed the applicants' personal circumstances, carefully balanced the competing interests and took into account the criteria set out in its case law, and reached conclusions which were "neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable" (see Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017 and Alam v. Denmark (dec.), no. 33809/15, § 35, 6 June 2017).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  Moreover, the crimes committed by the applicant, including the last one leading to the expulsion order, were of such a nature that they had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Salem, cited above, § 66, 1 December 2016, and Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 32, 16 May 2017).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76550/13

  SABER ET BOUGHASSAL c. ESPAGNE

  Si la mise en balance par les autorités nationales s'est faite dans le respect des critères établis par la jurisprudence de la Cour, il faut des raisons sérieuses pour que celle-ci substitue son avis à celui des juridictions internes (voir, dans ce sens, Ndidi c. Royaume-Uni, no 41215/14, §§ 76-82, 14 septembre 2017, et Hamesevic c. Danemark (déc.), no 25748/15, §§ 31-46, 16 mai 2017).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  KHAN v. DENMARK

  In any event, nothing prevents the applicant from maintaining contact with his parents and siblings, for example by telephone or other electronic means of communication, or by visits in countries other than Denmark (see, mutatis mutandis, Salem v. Denmark, cited above, § 81 and Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, § 44, 16 May 2017).
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 53028/14

  MACOVEI c. ROUMANIE

  Although opinions may differ on the outcome of such an assessment, the Court's role is limited to ascertaining whether the domestic courts have weighed up a person's freedom of expression with another person's right to respect for private life in accordance with the criteria established in the Court's case-law and whether the respective outcome is acceptable or, at least, neither arbitrary nor manifestly unreasonable (see in this respect, for example, Hamesevic v. Denmark, no. 25748/15, § 43, 16 May 2017).
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 59534/14

  VELJKOVIC-JUKIC c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 57766/19

  LOUKILI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 41643/19

  ABDI v. DENMARK
• VG München, 05.03.2020 - M 16 K 17.48052

  Familienflüchtlingsschutz bei Geburt des Kindes außerhalb des Herkunftslandes
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 77220/16

  VILLALOBOS c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 25593/14

  ASSEM HASSAN ALI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 49322/15

  F.B. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 18339/19

  OTITE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 27801/19

  JOHANSEN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 62130/15

  K.A. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 19.03.2026 - 15860/22

  HUSSAIN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 6325/15

  J.A. v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 24.11.2020 - 80343/17

  UNUANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 35201/18

  DIALA c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 04.07.2024 - 47580/21

  R.T. c. ESPAGNE
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 4993/15

  B.S. v. POLAND
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 42517/15

  YURDAER v. DENMARK