Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  However, the expulsion of a person from a country where his or her close relatives reside or have the right to reside may amount to an infringement of the right to respect for family life guaranteed in Article 8 § 1 (see Moustaquim v. Belgium, 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, § 36).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  The Court notes that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their obligations under international treaties, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, § 102).
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 39051/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  On a number of occasions the Court has stated that relationships between parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, among many other authorities, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XIV; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.N v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, 17 September 2013).

• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 27034/05

  Z. et T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  On a number of occasions the Court has stated that relationships between parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, among many other authorities, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XIV; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.N v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 5049/12

  SENCHISHAK v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  Therefore, the existence of "family life" cannot be relied on by applicants in relation to elderly parents, adults who do not belong to the core family, unless the latter have been shown to be dependent on the members of their family (see Slivenko, cited above, § 97, and Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 58, 18 November 2014).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 16351/03

  KONSTATINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  On a number of occasions the Court has stated that relationships between parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, among many other authorities, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XIV; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.N v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 3202/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  On a number of occasions the Court has stated that relationships between parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, among many other authorities, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XIV; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.N v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, 17 September 2013).
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 72780/12

  MURADELI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law see Muradeli v. Russia, no. 72780/12, §§ 45-54, 9 April 2015.
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 46897/07

  EL MORABIT v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  On a number of occasions the Court has stated that relationships between parents and adult children do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, among many other authorities, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007-XIV; El Morabit v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 46897/07, 18 May 2010; and F.N v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 3202/09, 17 September 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  ZAKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA

  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, 09.07.2019 - 14918/14

  ROZKHANI v. RUSSIA

  Referring to the cases of Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, 18 November 2014, Slivenko and Others v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, ECHR 2002-II (extracts) and Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017, the Government argued that owing to the applicant's short period of residence with his mother and her lack of dependency on him, she was not a part of his core family.
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  YESHTLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court notes that Y had already come of age when the applicant applied for housing benefit for 2006 and reiterates the Court's well-established case-law in immigration cases that relationships between adult relatives do not fall within the protective scope of Article 8 unless "additional factors of dependence, other than normal emotional ties, are shown to exist" (see, for instance, Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27034/05, ECHR 2006-III; Konstatinov v. the Netherlands, no. 16351/03, § 52, 26 April 2007; Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 35, ECHR 2007 XIV; Senchishak v. Finland, no. 5049/12, § 55, 18 November 2014; Sapondzhyan v. Russia (dec.), no. 32986/08, 21 March 2017 and E.P. v. the Netherlands and A.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), nos.