Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAN v. DENMARK

  No 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)

  KHAN v. DENMARK

  Art. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07

  MIAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  25 of the judgment delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 27 April 2010 concerning application no. 53080/07, Miah v. the United Kingdom, which states, inter alia, that the alien's sentence of imprisonment for one year for the last in a series of offences was 'at the lower end of the scale to which a presumption in favour of deportation would apply'.

  He noted that in general, the Court had considered that a sentence of imprisonment for twelve months, for the last in a series of offences, was "at the lower end of the scale to which a presumption in favour of deportation would apply" (see Miah v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, 27 April 2010).

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012 and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 88, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  Article 8 protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III) and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's social identity (see Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I).

• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  It will depend on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is appropriate for the Court to focus on the "family life" rather than the "private life" aspect (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 59, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  Article 8 protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III) and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's social identity (see Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 53, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  The Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular the fact that such a ban is limited, is an element that it has attached importance to in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003, Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004, Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; and Külekci v. Austria, 30441/09, § 51, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 60125/11

  V.M. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  I would like to begin by quoting a Grand Chamber judgment in the case of V.M. and Others v. Belgium (striking out) [GC], no. 60125/11, 17 November 2016, for that judgment raises a similar issue to the one giving rise to my objections in the present case:.
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 41215/14

  NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  The Court points out in that regard 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, Levakovic v. Denmark, cited above, § 45; Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017, and, mutatis mutandis, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 7841/14

  LEVAKOVIC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  The Court sees no reason to find otherwise (see also, for example, Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 61, 1 December 2016, and Levakovic v. Denmark, no. 7841/14, § 39, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30441/09

  KÜLEKCI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  The Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular the fact that such a ban is limited, is an element that it has attached importance to in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003, Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004, Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; and Külekci v. Austria, 30441/09, § 51, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 31519/96

  KWAKYE-NTI ET DUFIE contre les PAYS-BAS
• EGMR, 15.11.2012 - 52873/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 16711/15

  MOHAMMAD v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 72780/12

  MURADELI v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 78630/12

  BEELER v. SWITZERLAND

  De manière générale, la Cour estime qu'il n'y a pas de « vie familiale ", au sens de l'article 8, entre parents et enfants majeurs s'il n'existe pas d'éléments supplémentaires de dépendance (Slivenko c. Lettonie [GC], no 48321/99, § 97, CEDH 2003-X, A.W. Khan c. Royaume-Uni, no 47486/06, § 32, 12 janvier 2010, Narjis c. Italie, no 57433/15, § 37, 14 février 2019, Khan c. Danemark, no 26957/19, §§ 58 et 80, 12 janvier 2021).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 3645/23

  SAVURAN v. DENMARK

  Indeed, the Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular whether such a ban is of limited or unlimited duration, is an element to which it has attached importance in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; Külekci, cited above, § 51; Veljkovic-Jukic v. Switzerland, no. 59534/14, § 57, 21 July 2020; and Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 79, 12 January 2021).".
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  SHARAFANE v. DENMARK

  Indeed, the Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular whether such a ban is of limited or unlimited duration, is an element to which it has attached importance in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; Külekci, cited above, § 51; Veljkovic-Jukic v. Switzerland, no. 59534/14, § 57, 21 July 2020; and Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 79, 12 January 2021).".

• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 14983/25

  ALLABED v. DENMARK

  Indeed, the Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular whether such a ban is of limited or unlimited duration, is an element to which it has attached importance in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; Külekci, cited above, § 51; Veljkovic-Jukic v. Switzerland, no. 59534/14, § 57, 21 July 2020; and Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 79, 12 January 2021).".
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 14171/23

  AL-HABEEB v. DENMARK

  Indeed, the Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular whether such a ban is of limited or unlimited duration, is an element to which it has attached importance in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; Külekci, cited above, § 51; Veljkovic-Jukic v. Switzerland, no. 59534/14, § 57, 21 July 2020; and Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 79, 12 January 2021).".
• EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  MIARI v. DENMARK

  Indeed, the Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular whether such a ban is of limited or unlimited duration, is an element to which it has attached importance in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; Külekci, cited above, § 51; Veljkovic-Jukic v. Switzerland, no. 59534/14, § 57, 21 July 2020; and Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 79, 12 January 2021).".
• EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 57766/19

  LOUKILI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court reiterates that it has never set a minimum requirement as to the sentence or seriousness of the crime which ultimately results in expulsion, nor has it, in the application of all the relevant criteria, qualified the relative weight to be accorded to each criterion in the individual assessment (see Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, §§ 68-69, 12 January 2021, and Munir Johana v. Denmark, no. 56803/18, §§ 53-54, 12 January 2021, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 31572/19

  HUSSAIN v. DENMARK

  The Court finds reason to add that the crimes committed by the applicant, including the final ones leading to the unconditional expulsion order, were such as to have serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 72, 12 January 2021; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 89, 3 July 2012; and Salem v. Denmark, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 9588/21

  WINTHER v. DENMARK

  Indeed, the Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular whether such a ban is of limited or unlimited duration, is an element to which it has attached importance in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; Külekci, cited above, § 51; Veljkovic-Jukic v. Switzerland, no. 59534/14, § 57, 21 July 2020; and Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 79, 12 January 2021).".
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 17803/20

  MAVRIC v. DENMARK

  The Court finds reason to add that two of the crimes concerned robberies, which had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 72, 12 January 2021; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 89, 3 July 2012; and Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 66, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 19632/20

  Z.A. v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 20579/20

  ABDULJI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 16588/20

  AHMED v. DENMARK