Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YESHTLA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 67656/12

  THOR v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  The Contracting State enjoys a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar situations justify a different treatment (see, for instance, Thor v. Austria (dec.), no. 67656/12, § 38 with further references, 19 September 2017).
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 39051/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  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.
• EGMR, 28.02.2006 - 27034/05

  Z. et T. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  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.

• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 43538/11

  E.P. AND A.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  43538/11 and 63104/11, § 89, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 22722/07

  SHTABOVENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  On the basis of the Court's case-law under Article 8 in respect of young adults and their parents (inter alia, Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, 23 September 2010; Osman v. Denmark, no. 38058/09, 14 June 2011; and A.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 8000/08, 20 September 2011), an amendment (WBV 2016/11) of the Aliens Act 2000 Implementation Guidelines (Vreemdelingencirculaire 2000) entered into force on 8 September 2016, according to which the existence of family life within the meaning of Article 8 is generally accepted - without requiring the existence of further elements of dependency involving more than the normal emotional ties - for young adults between 18 and 25 years old and their parents where the former have always formed and continue to form a part of their parents' core family unit (gezin).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 5049/12

  SENCHISHAK v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  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.
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 16351/03

  KONSTATINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  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.
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 32986/08

  SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  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.
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 60915/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice relating to admission proceedings and the concept of "lawful stay" is set out in the decision given by the Court in the case of Afif v. the Netherlands (no. 60915/09, §§ 26-32, 24 May 2011).
• EGMR, 03.05.2001 - 55996/00

  DOMENECH PARDO contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 37115/11

  In addition, in this the family life will be significantly disturbed whereby the interests of the very young Dutch child are being compromised which is not in accordance with the guarantees set out in Article 8 of the Convention and accepted by the Court (Domenech Pardo v Spain (dec.), no. 55996/00, 3 May 2001; and Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 109, 3 October 2014 www.echr.coe.int).

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).
• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 25402/14

  PORMES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  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 of Judgments and Decisions 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).
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  AZERKANE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  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).