Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIARI 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)

  MIARI v. DENMARK

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  Rn. 15 The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).

  Rn. 32 The Court finds it established that there was an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8, that the expulsion order and the re-entry ban were "in accordance with the law", and that they pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime (see also, for example, Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 61, 1 December 2016).

• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  AVCI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  Rn. 42 The Court does not call into question the finding that the applicant's offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Mutlag, cited above, §§ 61-62; Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, §§ 30 and 37, 30 November 2021; and Savuran, § 36, cited above).
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 40601/05

  Rechtssache M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34, 13 February 2001, and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the individuals in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).

• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  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, 01.06.2017 - 30441/09

  KÜLEKCI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  In addition, the Court will have regard to the duration of the exclusion order (ibid., § 98; see also Külekci v. Austria, no. 30441/09, § 39, 1 June 2017, and Azerkane v. the Netherlands, no. 3138/16, § 70, 2 June 2020).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  Rn. 15 The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  KHAN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  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, 14.09.2021 - 41643/19

  ABDI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  The Court has accepted that this remedy is adequate and effective for the purpose of bringing an application before it (see Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, § 22, 14 September 2021).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  AZERKANE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  In addition, the Court will have regard to the duration of the exclusion order (ibid., § 98; see also Külekci v. Austria, no. 30441/09, § 39, 1 June 2017, and Azerkane v. the Netherlands, no. 3138/16, § 70, 2 June 2020).
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 59534/14

  VELJKOVIC-JUKIC c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  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
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 14171/23

  AL-HABEEB v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 44810/20

  NOORZAE v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 3645/23

  SAVURAN v. DENMARK

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.10.2025 - C-446/24

  Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Einwanderungspolitik - Richtlinie 2008/115/EG - …

  Vgl. zur Möglichkeit, zumindest im Rahmen familiärer Beziehungen für einen kurzen Zeitraum in das Hoheitsgebiet des betreffenden Staates zurückzukehren, u. a. Urteil des EGMR vom 15. Juli 2025, Miari/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2025:0715JUD000285224, § 45 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).
• 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, 19.02.2026 - 42101/23

  V.N. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  Moreover, when assessing the length of a re-entry ban, consideration is given to whether an offence leading to an expulsion order is of such a nature that the person in question poses a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Miari v. Denmark, no. 2852/24, § 40, 15 July 2025, and the cases cited therein).