Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AZERKANE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Monaco) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AZERKANE v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  However, he considered that an assessment on the basis of the guiding principles laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments in the cases of Boultif v. Switzerland (no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX) and Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII) led to the conclusion that the interests of public order and the prevention of crime outweighed the personal interests of the applicant.

  However, an interference with a person's private or family life will be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention unless it can be justified under paragraph 2 of that Article as being "in accordance with the law", as pursuing one or more of the legitimate aims listed therein, and as being "necessary in a democratic society", that is to say, justified by a pressing social need and, in particular, proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII).

• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  However, he considered that an assessment on the basis of the guiding principles laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgments in the cases of Boultif v. Switzerland (no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX) and Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII) led to the conclusion that the interests of public order and the prevention of crime outweighed the personal interests of the applicant.

  The Court's task consists in ascertaining whether the impugned measures struck a fair balance between the relevant interests, namely the individual's rights protected by the Convention on the one hand and the community's interests on the other (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 113, ECHR 2003-X; Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 47, ECHR 2001-IX; and M.P.E.V. and Others v. Switzerland, no. 3910/13, § 53, 8 July 2014).

• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  As regards, finally, the duration of the entry ban, the Court has previously found such a ban disproportionate on account of its unlimited duration (see, for instance, Ezzouhdi, cited above, § 34 in fine, and Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005) while, in other cases, it has considered the limited duration of a residence prohibition as a factor weighing in favour of its proportionality (see, for instance, Benhebba v. France, no. 53441/99, § 37, 10 July 2003, and Üner, cited above, § 65).

• EGMR, 11.10.2005 - 22050/04

  TAJDIRTI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  It is also noted that the applicant was brought up by Moroccan-born parents, that he speaks some Berber - the language of a sizeable proportion of the population of Morocco (see Tajdirti v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 22050/04, 11 October 2005) - and that accommodation is available for him there, even if this is in need of some repair (see paragraphs 52 and 58 above).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  To that end they have the power to deport aliens convicted of criminal offences (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94, and Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 27034/05

  Z. et T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  In its case-law in immigration cases, the Court has laid down as a general rule that relationships between adult relatives do not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without further elements of dependency involving more than the normal emotional ties (see, for instance, Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007, and Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30441/09

  KÜLEKCI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  - the duration of the exclusion order (see Maslov, cited above, §§ 71 and 98, and Külekci v. Austria, no. 30441/09, § 39, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 16351/03

  KONSTATINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  In its case-law in immigration cases, the Court has laid down as a general rule that relationships between adult relatives do not necessarily attract the protection of Article 8 without further elements of dependency involving more than the normal emotional ties (see, for instance, Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007, and Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  YESHTLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  However, it has not insisted on such further elements of dependency in a number of cases concerning young adults who were still living with their parents and had not yet started a family of their own (see Bouchelkia v. France, 29 January 1997, § 41, Reports 1997-I; Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 26, 13 February 2001; Maslov, cited above, §§ 62 and 64; Osman v. Denmark, no. 38058/09, §§ 55-56, 14 June 2011; and Yesthla v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 37115/11, § 32, 15 January 2019).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• OVG Thüringen, 07.06.2024 - 4 EO 61/24

  In Deutschland geborene oder in frühester Kindheit eingereiste Ausländer; …

  Ungeachtet dessen hat er jedoch in einer Reihe von Fällen, die junge Erwachsene betrafen, die noch bei ihren Eltern lebten und noch keine eigene Familie gegründet hatten, solche weiteren Elemente der Abhängigkeit gerade nicht gefordert (vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 29. Januar 1997 - 23078/93 - Bouchelkia ./. Frankreich, vom 13. Februar 2001 - 47160/99 - Ezzouhdi ./. Frankreich, vom 23. Juni 2008 - 1638/03 - Maslov ./. Österreich, vom 14. Juni 2011 - 38058/09 - Osman ./. Dänemark, vom 15. Januar 2019 - 37115/11 - Yesthla ./. Niederlande und Urteil vom 2. Juni 2020 - 3138/16 - Azerkane ./. Niederlande unter Berücksichtigung der Änderung des niederländischen Rechts, das ab 2016 für junge Erwachsene an die Rechtsprechung des EGMR angepasst worden war, vgl. Rn. 45 und 64 sowie VGH Baden-Württemberg, Beschluss vom 5. Februar 2009 - 11 S 3244/08 - juris).

  Zwar erscheint es nicht ausgeschlossen, im Hauptsacheverfahren auch wertend in den Blick zu nehmen, bei welchen dieser Straftaten es sich (nicht nur wegen des jugendlichen Alters, sondern auch ihrer Schwere nach) möglicherweise um "bloße Jugendstraftaten" gehandelt haben könnte (vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 2. Juni 2020 - 3138/16 - Azerkane ./. Niederlande, Rn. 73 unter Verweis auf das Urteil vom 23. Juni 2008 - 1638/03 - Maslov ./. Österreich).

• EGMR, 30.05.2023 - 8757/20

  AZZAQUI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The minister responsible may revoke a residence permit of indefinite duration on grounds of public order if the holder has been convicted by a final court judgment of a crime (misdrijf) that is punishable by a custodial sentence of three years' imprisonment or more or has been placed at the disposal of the Government (section 20(1)(b) read in conjunction with section 22(2)(c) of the Aliens Act 2000 - Vreemdelingenwet 2000), and if the revocation is in keeping with the "sliding scale" principle (section 3.98 read in conjunction with section 3.86 of the Aliens Decree 2000 - Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000; on this principle, see further Azerkane v. the Netherlands, no. 3138/16, §§ 37-38, 2 June 2020).

  The Court accepts that the impugned measures pursued the legitimate aims of ensuring public safety and preventing disorder or crime (see Üner, cited above, § 61, and Azerkane v. the Netherlands, no. 3138/16, § 68, 2 June 2020).

• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 19632/20

  Z.A. v. IRELAND

  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).

  While the relationship can be considered as pertaining to his private life (see, among others, Azerkane v. the Netherlands, no. 3138/16, § 65, 2 June 2020), the Court cannot attribute much weight to it.

• EGMR, 10.12.2024 - 4470/21

  MARTINEZ ALVARADO v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In its case-law the [Court] has considered that relationships between adult family members may fall under the protection of Article 8 of the [Convention] if the ties between them can be characterised as "further elements of dependency, involving more than the normal emotional ties" (see, for example, paragraph 64 of the judgment in Azerkane v. the Netherlands [no. 3138/16]).
• EGMR, 10.03.2026 - 32283/23

  MANJANI v. ALBANIA

  Furthermore, a number of relevant circumstances were not sufficiently considered, including the non-violent and impulsive nature of the offence committed by the applicant, which can be regarded as a typical act of juvenile delinquency (see Maslov, cited above, § 81, and, a contrario, with necessary changes made, Azerkane v. the Netherlands, no. 3138/16, § 73, 2 June 2020); the length of time since the commission of the offence (see, mutatis mutandis, Hurbain v. Belgium [GC], no. 57292/16, § 221, 4 July 2023); the applicant's apparently law-abiding conduct during that period, in which he trained and worked as a lawyer before becoming a judicial police officer in a prosecutor's office; and his character at the relevant time (see, mutatis mutandis, Maslov, cited above, §§ 81-85 and 87-95; İhsan Ay v. Turkey, no. 34288/04, § 40, 21 January 2014; and Gaughran v. the United Kingdom, no. 45245/15, § 94, 13 February 2020).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 3645/23

  SAVURAN v. DENMARK

  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, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  SHARAFANE v. DENMARK

  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, 07.07.2026 - 14983/25

  ALLABED v. DENMARK

  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, 12.11.2024 - 14171/23

  AL-HABEEB v. DENMARK

  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, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  MIARI v. DENMARK

  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, 11.04.2023 - 57766/19

  LOUKILI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 9588/21

  WINTHER v. DENMARK