Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  F.A.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+8, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 27644/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  The Court will confine itself to noting that, according to its standing case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available in respect only of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  The Court will confine itself to noting that, according to its standing case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available in respect only of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 22.11.2012 - 39315/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  Nor is it the applicant's point that the AIVD itself was in some way remiss or the use of its powers insufficiently circumscribed (compare and contrast Uitgeversmaatschappij De Telegraaf B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39315/06, 18 May 2010).

• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  Failing such safeguards, the police or other State authorities would be able to encroach arbitrarily on rights protected by the Convention (see Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, §§ 123-124, 20 June 2002; Lupsa v. Romania, no. 10337/04, §§ 33-34, ECHR 2006-VII; Liu and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 59, 6 December 2007; and Nolan and K. v. Russia, no. 2512/04, § 71, 12 February 2009).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 46897/07

  EL MORABIT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004; and El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 6276/03

  TAHERI KANDOMABADI v. the NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004; and El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 58243/00

  LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, for example, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-IV; see also, as a more recent authority, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual concerned, if expelled, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case, Article 3 implies an obligation not to expel the person in question to that country (see, most recent, Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 72, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 04.06.2002 - 33129/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  The Court reiterates its settled case-law, according to which the expression "in accordance with the law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see, for example, Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V, and Olivieira v. the Netherlands, no. 33129/96, § 47, ECHR 2002-IV; see also, as a more recent authority, Liberty and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 58243/00, § 59, 1 July 2008).
• EGMR, 27.01.2005 - 39349/03

  MAWAJEDI SHIKPOHKT AND MAHKAMAT SHOLE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 30112/09

  It is not for the respondent to disprove factual allegations unsupported by evidence, as the applicant appears to imply (compare, as an example involving the same respondent Party, Mawajedi Shikpohkt and Mahkamat Shole v. the Netherlands (dec), no. 39349/03, 27 January 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11

  KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE v. CYPRUS and 2 other applications

  The Court will confine itself to noting that, in accordance with its established case-law, Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law to be available only in respect of such grievances as are "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131; more recently, F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 137, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 14876/12

  I.R. AND G.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Second, SIAC sees all the evidence upon which the Secretary of State's decision to exclude an individual is based and forms its own, independent view as to whether the Secretary of State reached the correct decision (see F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 82, 23 October 2012; and compare and contrast Liu (no. 2), cited above, §§ 88-89 and 91).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 60538/13

  A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 91, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 53/12

  SAEED v. DENMARK

  Both courts were presented with all the evidence in the case, open material as well as closed material, and they were able to form their own independent views as to whether the Minister and the Ministry of Integration had reached the correct decisions (see F.A.K. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30112/09, § 82, 23 October 2012; and compare and contrast Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 88-89 and 91, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 67447/11

  H.E.F. c. ESPAGNE

  La Cour observe à cet égard que la révolte contre le régime de Mouammar Kadhafi s'est terminée le 23 octobre 2011, date à laquelle la « libération'de la Libye a été proclamée officiellement (F.A.K. c. Pays Bas, (déc.) no 30112/09, § 43, 23 octobre 2012).