Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALIM v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 41, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 8 (in case of expulsion from Russia) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Alim v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 30141/04

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  As to the notion of "family life", the Court first reiterates its well-established case-law, according to which the notion of family under Article 8 of the Convention is not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock (see, among others, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, § 94, ECHR 2010-..., and Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290).
• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  It will depend on the circumstances of the particular case whether it is appropriate for the Court to focus on the "family life" rather than the "private life" aspect (see Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 59, ECHR 2006-XII).
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  As to the notion of "family life", the Court first reiterates its well-established case-law, according to which the notion of family under Article 8 of the Convention is not confined to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties where the parties are living together out of wedlock (see, among others, Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, no. 30141/04, § 94, ECHR 2010-..., and Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290).

• EGMR, 31.01.2006 - 50435/99

  Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Abschiebung, Duldung, unerlaubter Aufenthalt, Kinder

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  Nevertheless, in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State's obligations to admit to its territory relatives of persons residing there will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest (see Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. the Netherlands, no. 50435/99, § 39, ECHR 2006-I).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10730/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  Second, as regards minor children, the Court also reiterates that a child born of a marital relationship is ipso jure part of that "family" unit from the moment and by the very fact of his or her birth (see Berrehab v. the Netherlands, 21 June 1988, § 21, Series A no. 138).
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 45582/99

  L. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The existence or non-existence of "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 is also a question of fact depending upon the real existence in practice of close personal ties, for instance the demonstrable interest and commitment by the father to the child both before and after birth (see L. v. the Netherlands, no. 45582/99, § 36, ECHR 2004-IV).
• EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 14160/08

  DOLINSKIY v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The Court accepts that the requirement of due diligence was complied with in the present case (see, for comparison, Dolinskiy v. Estonia (dec.), no. 14160/08, 2 February 2010, and Agnissan v. Denmark (dec.), no. 39964/98, 4 October 2001).
• EGMR, 04.10.2001 - 39964/98

  AGNISSAN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  The Court accepts that the requirement of due diligence was complied with in the present case (see, for comparison, Dolinskiy v. Estonia (dec.), no. 14160/08, 2 February 2010, and Agnissan v. Denmark (dec.), no. 39964/98, 4 October 2001).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  However, the Court reiterates that Article 3 of the Convention requires the State to ensure that detention conditions are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the detainees to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, their health and well-being are adequately secured (see, among others, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of the specific allegations made by the applicant and the cumulative effects of those conditions (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 12186/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 8256/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 2052/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.04.2004 - 21689/93

  AHMET ÖZKAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 1555/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 23939/02

  SHCHERBAKOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  Therefore, at the time, as the applicant was found guilty of the offence, the court had no choice but to impose that penalty, irrespective of the validity of the arguments relating to Article 2 or 3 of the Convention (see, by way of comparison, Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, §§ 49-53 and §§ 56-57, 26 June 2014, and Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011, which dealt with complaints under Article 8 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 26.04.2016 - 25501/07

  NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA and 16 other applications

  The Court has doubts as to whether the administrative-offence procedure was conceptualised, or at least applied, in such a way as to allow the freedom-of-expression arguments to have any weight and to accommodate a proportionality analysis or, at least, an assessment leading to a result which would be proportionate in the particular circumstances of a given case (see, however, paragraph 70 above; see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 30.05.2013 - 36673/04

  [ENG]

  The Court finds it regrettable that the national courts in the administrative offence procedure in the present case did not assess the applicant's situation, including the penalty to be imposed, taking into account the relevant principles under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see, for comparison, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011).

• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if carried out under a court order (see Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 55, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 38898/04

  [ENG]

  In the present case, the Court is not satisfied that the judicial review adequately assessed the factual and legal elements pertaining to the proportionality assessment of the measure (see, by way of comparison, Abashev v. Russia, no. 9096/09, §§ 40-42, 27 June 2013, and Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 95, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 62892/12

  AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Government submitted, with a reference to Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 54, 27 September 2011, that administrative removal constituted "expulsion" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention.
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

  RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if carried out under a court order (see Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 55, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  [ENG]

  At the same time, the Court reiterates that in earlier cases it has been prepared to accept that such a flaw, taken separately, did not amount to a gross and obvious irregularity (see, in the context of a failure to give reasons to justify the necessity of holding an applicant in custody, Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 57, 27 September 2011, and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 81, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if carried out under a court order (see Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 55, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 68921/13

  NAMAZOV AND ALEKSEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Unlike in the case of Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, 27 September 2011, where for a significant length of time the applicant resided lawfully in Russia, the first applicant in the present case had not taken any steps to regularise his stay and apply for either a temporary residence permit or the Russian passport.
• EGMR - 70090/10 (anhängig)

  TSERKOV YEVANGELSKIKH KHRISTIAN-BAPTISTOV AND PANASENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 78228/14

  ALIYEV v. UKRAINE