Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZAKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA

  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)

  ZAKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  The Government also referred to the criteria cited by the Court in Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII and argued that the applicant's exclusion had complied with them.

  As is acknowledged by the majority, the criteria to be generally applied in the case of the expulsion of an alien who has been convicted of a criminal offence are those that were set forth in Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII).

• EGMR, 30.11.1999 - 34374/97

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  Thus, the Court is not convinced by the applicant's arguments to the contrary and finds that the applicant had ties with Poland (see Baghli v. France, no. 34374/97, § 48, ECHR 1999-VIII, and Samsonnikov, cited above, § 88).
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 41215/14

  NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  More specifically, in our opinion, they did not adequately balance the applicant's personal interests against the more general public interest in the case (compare, for example, Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017, and I.M. v. Switzerland, no. 23887/16, §§ 72-73, 9 April 2019).

• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  In their assessment of the proportionality of the interference, the national authorities enjoy a certain margin of appreciation (see Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 21 June 1988, § 28, Series A no. 138).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  The requirement that any interference is "in accordance with the law" is met when three conditions are satisfied: the impugned measure must have some basis in domestic law; the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned; and the person concerned must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 37, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 40601/05

  Rechtssache M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  Considering this, the Court does not doubt that the applicant was fully integrated into Russian society (see, by contrast, Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 58-59, 25 March 2010).
• EGMR, 10.02.2009 - 25198/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  The requirement that any interference is "in accordance with the law" is met when three conditions are satisfied: the impugned measure must have some basis in domestic law; the domestic law must be compatible with the rule of law and accessible to the person concerned; and the person concerned must be able to foresee the consequences of the domestic law for him (see, among many other authorities, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V; Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008; and Iordachi and Others v. Moldova, no. 25198/02, § 37, 10 February 2009).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  Finally, referring to Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, 6 December 2007, the applicant stated that the legal provisions governing the deportation procedure did not meet the "quality of law" requirements as in his case the domestic courts were not "in a position to request from the authorities and analyse specific evidence concerning the reality and the degree of danger [he posed] to public safety".
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 5049/12

  SENCHISHAK v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  On a number of occasions the Court has stated that the existence of "family life" cannot be relied on by applicants in relation to elderly parents, that is to say adults who do not belong to the core family, unless they have been shown to be dependent on the members of their family (see Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 58, 18 November 2014, and Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  Unlike the case of Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, 26 June 2014, where the applicant had not committed crimes using violence, in the present case both of the applicant's convictions had involved the use of violence and the second one had caused grievous bodily harm to the victim.
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE

  [89] En ce qui concerne l'expulsion d'un étranger en phase terminale, voir S.J. c. Belgique [GC], no 70055/10, CEDH 2015 ; en ce qui concerne l'expulsion d'un étranger sans papiers, voir De Souza Ribeiro, précité ; en ce qui concerne le refoulement collectif de demandeurs d'asile interceptés en haute mer, voir Hirsi Jamaa et autres, précité ; en ce qui concerne l'expulsion d'un jeune étranger condamné pour coups et blessures graves, voir Zakharchuk c. Russie, no 2967/12, 17 décembre 2019; en ce qui concerne le refoulement d'un demandeur d'asile à la frontière, voir M.A. c. Lituanie, no 59793/17, 11 décembre 2018; en ce qui concerne l'expulsion administrative d'un étranger condamné pour infraction sexuelle, alors même que la juridiction répressive avait sursis à l'exécution de la mesure d'expulsion, voir Vasquez c. Suisse, no 1785/08, 26 novembre 2013; en ce qui concerne l'expulsion d'un étranger condamné pour trafic de stupéfiants, voir Kissiwa Koffi c. Suisse, no 38005/07, 15 novembre 2012; et, en ce qui concerne l'expulsion d'un étranger condamné pour plusieurs infractions de faible gravité, voir Shala c. Suisse, no 52873/09, 15 novembre 2012.
• EGMR, 08.06.2021 - 11338/15

  MEN v. RUSSIA

  However, those details were not subject to examination by the domestic courts in the examination of the exclusion order (see paragraphs 16, 18 and 19 above) and cannot be relied upon in the Court's analysis of the proportionality (compare Zakharchuk v. Russia, no. 2967/12, § 51, 17 December 2019).