Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANTWI AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 (in case of expulsion to Ghana) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Antwi and Others v. Norway

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 16351/03

  KONSTATINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 46, 26 April 2007; Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 60665/00, § 42, 1 December 2005; Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Gül v. Switzerland, 1 February 1996, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 41, Series A no. 172).

  For another comparable case under Article 8, involving serious breaches of the relevant immigration legislation, as well as other criminal offences (see Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, §§ 9-12, 49 ff., 26 April 2007).

• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  In both contexts regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole; and in both contexts the State enjoys a certain margin of appreciation (see Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 46, 26 April 2007; Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 60665/00, § 42, 1 December 2005; Ahmut v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI; Gül v. Switzerland, 1 February 1996, § 63, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 41, Series A no. 172).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 39388/05

  Maumousseau und Washington ./. Frankreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  Finally, the Court has stressed that "the passage of time can have irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the parent with whom he or she does not live" (Macready v. the Czech Republic, nos 4824/06 and 15512/08, 22 April 2010; Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, § 83, ECHR 2007-XIII).

• EGMR, 26.01.1999 - 43279/98

  SARUMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  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; Andrey Sheabashov c. la Lettonie (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999).
• EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 44328/98

  SOLOMON v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  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 and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; 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, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  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, cited above; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).".
• EGMR, 09.11.2000 - 50065/99

  SHEBASHOV contre la LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  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; Andrey Sheabashov c. la Lettonie (dec.), no. 50065/99, 22 May 1999).
• EGMR, 22.06.1999 - 27663/95

  AJAYI AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  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 and whether there are factors of immigration control (for example, a history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order weighing in favour of exclusion (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.; Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Solomon v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 44328/98, 5 September 2000).
• EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 44947/98

  KAYA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 26940/10

  Moreover, as already held on previous occasions, the possibility for the authorities to react with expulsion would constitute an important means of general deterrence against gross or repeated violations of the Immigration Act (see Nunez, cited above, § 71, and Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, § 67, 31 July 2008; see also Kaya v. the Netherlands (dec.) no 44947/98, 6 November 2001).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18

  Syrien: Wartefrist von 3 Jahren für Familienzusammenführung widerspricht Artikel …

  above; Bouchelkia v. France, judgment of 29 January 1997, Reports 1997-I; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, 26 April 2007; Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, 31 July 2008; Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, 14 February 2012; and Priya v. Denmark (dec.) no. 3594/03, 6 July 2016).
• EGMR, 03.10.2014 - 12738/10

  [ENG]

  De plus, elle n'aurait jamais menti sur son identité et, à la différence des requérants dans les affaires Nunez c. Norvège (no 55597/09, 28 juin 2011), Arvelo Aponte c. Pays-Bas (no 28770/05, 3 novembre 2011) et Antwi et autres c. Norvège (no 26940/10, 14 février 2012), elle n'aurait pas d'antécédents judiciaires.
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  Reference was made to the Court's judgments in Antwi and Others v. Norway (no. 26940/10, § 104, 14 February 2012) and Boujlifa v. France (21 October 1997, § 43, Reports 1997-VI).

• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 13258/18

  B.F. ET D.E. c. SUISSE

  In such a situation, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see, among many others, Jeunesse, cited above, § 108; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, cited above; Bouchelkia v. France, judgment of 29 January 1997, Reports 1997-I; Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, ECHR 1999-VIII; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, 26 April 2007; Darren Omoregie and Others v. Norway, no. 265/07, 31 July 2008; Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, 14 February 2012; and Priya v. Denmark (dec.) no. 3594/03, 6 July 2016).
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 41738/10

  PAPOSHVILI c. BELGIQUE

  Lorsqu'une telle situation se présente, ce n'est que dans des circonstances tout à fait exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n'ayant pas la nationalité de l'État hôte emporte violation de l'article 8 de la Convention (Abdulaziz, Cabales et Balkandali, précité, § 68, Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer, précité, § 39, Darren Omoregie et autres c. Norvège, no 265/07, § 57, 31 juillet 2008, Nunez, précité, § 70, Antwi et autres c. Norvège, no 26940/10, § 89, 14 février 2012).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 52701/09

  [FRE]

  Les facteur à prendre en considération dans ce contexte sont la mesure dans laquelle il y a effectivement entrave à la vie familiale, l'étendue des liens que les personnes concernées ont avec l'État contractant en cause, la question de savoir s'il existe ou non des obstacles insurmontables à ce que la famille vive dans le pays d'origine d'une ou plusieurs des personnes concernées et celle de savoir s'il existe des éléments touchant au contrôle de l'immigration ou des considérations d'ordre public pesant en faveur d'une exclusion (Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c. Pays-Bas, no 50435/99, § 39, CEDH 2006-I ; Antwi et autres c. Norvège, no 26940/10, §§ 88-89, 14 février 2012).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 47017/09

  Abschiebung, Pakistan, Norwegen, Aufenthaltstitel, Verwurzelung, vorsätzliche …

  Accordingly, on the same approach as that adopted in the afore-mentioned Nunez judgment, the Court will have regard to the following principles stated therein (see also Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, § 89, 14 February 2012):.
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  [ENG]

  Factor in also the "best interests of the child" (as was the case in Nunez) and the case can spiral out of orbit (see also the joint dissenting opinion in Antwi and Others v. Norway (14 February 2012, no. 26940/10)).
• EGMR, 23.06.2022 - 569/20

  Dschibuti: keine Verletzung des Art. 8 EMRK bei Ausweisung einer vierfachen …

  Reference was made to Antwi and Others v. Norway, no. 26940/10, § 90, 14 February 2012.48.
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 70055/10

  S.J. c. BELGIQUE

  Lorsqu'une telle situation se présente, ce n'est que dans des circonstances tout à fait exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n'ayant pas la nationalité de l'État hôte emporte violation de l'article 8 de la Convention (Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer, précité, § 39, Darren Omoregie et autres c. Norvège, no 265/07, § 57, 31 juillet 2008, Nunez, précité, § 70, Antwi et autres c. Norvège, no 26940/10, § 89, 14 février 2012).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 45971/08

  SAVASCI v. GERMANY
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 27945/10

  MUCKOVA AND MAHRAN v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 19113/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 12510/18

  DABO v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 29790/14

  GULIYEV AND SHEINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 57750/17

  EZE v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 32504/11

  KAPLAN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY
• EGMR, 17.06.2014 - 23851/10

  [FRE]