Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 35, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Gablishvili v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  SAMSONNIKOV v. ESTONIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  Lastly, they submitted that the first applicant would not be able to return to Russia for five years following his administrative expulsion and submitted that, in their view, that period was not excessively long (here they referred to Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, 3 July 2012, in which the Court found no violation in respect of a three-year period, and Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008, in which the Court found a violation in respect of a ten-year period).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  The Court reaffirms at the outset that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (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, 10.03.2011 - 2700/10

  KIYUTIN c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  Furthermore, as noted above, the decision to revoke the first applicant's residence permit merely referred back to the expulsion order, there being no requirement on the issuing authority to carry out a separate evaluation of the applicants" family situation (compare Kiyutin v. Russia, no. 2700/10, § 73, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  BALOGUN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  Having regard to the first applicant's age, the length of the period of his criminal and immoral behaviour, as well as the seriousness of the crime and administrative offences he had committed, those deeds could not be regarded as "acts of juvenile delinquency" (here the Government referred to Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, 10 April 2012).

• EGMR, 09.04.2019 - 23887/16

  I.M. c. SUISSE

  Aux paragraphes 77 à 79 de l'arrêt, la Cour constate que l'expulsion du requérant vers le Kosovo constituerait une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention au motif que les autorités suisses n'ont pas procédé à une mise en balance de tous les intérêts en jeu afin d'apprécier, dans le respect des critères établis par sa jurisprudence, la nécessité de la mesure de renvoi du territoire suisse (voir, mutatis mutandis, Saber et Boughassal c. Espagne, nos 76550/13 et 45938/14, §§ 51 et 52, 18 décembre 2018, Gablishvili c. Russie, no 39428/12, §§ 48 et 60, 26 juin 2014, et Kamenov c. Russie, no 17570/15, §§ 34 et 41, 7 mars 2017).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 76550/13

  SABER ET BOUGHASSAL c. ESPAGNE

  Ce faisant, la Cour doit se convaincre que les autorités nationales ont appliqué des règles conformes aux principes consacrés à l'article 8 et ce, de surcroît, en se fondant sur une appréciation acceptable des faits pertinents (Gablishvili c. Russie, nº 39428/12, § 48, 26 juin 2014).

  Aux paragraphes 51 et 52 de l'arrêt, la Cour constate une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention en ce que les autorités nationales n'ont pas mis en balance tous les intérêts en jeu afin d'apprécier, dans le respect des critères établis par sa jurisprudence, la nécessité des mesures d'expulsion et d'interdiction du territoire (voir, mutatis mutandis, Gablishvili c. Russie, no 39428/12, §§ 48 et 60, 26 juin 2014, et Kamenov c. Russie, no 17570/15, §§ 34 et 41, 7 mars 2017).

• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 61064/10

  IVASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  In particular, the Court must examine whether the decision-making process leading to measures of interference was fair and such as to afford due respect to the interests safeguarded to the individual by the Convention (see, in the context of decisions relating to town and country planning policies, Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I, and in other contexts: Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, § 99, ECHR 2003-VIII; Fernández Martínez v. Spain [GC], no. 56030/07, § 147, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 85-86, 26 July 2011; Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 48, 26 June 2014; Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, §§ 146-50, 12 February 2013, and Lashmankin and Others, cited above, § 418).

 
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 35090/09

  POLYAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The procedural safeguards available to the individual will be especially material in determining whether the respondent State has, when fixing the regulatory framework, remained within its margin of appreciation (see Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 48, 26 June 2014).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 5871/07

  BERKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In the instant case, the refusal to issue a travel passport was a direct consequence of the decision to restrict Mr Samasadkin's right to leave Russia, rather than the outcome of a separate assessment of the factual and legal elements (compare Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 49, 26 June 2014).
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 2967/12

  ZAKHARCHUK v. RUSSIA

  Unlike the case of Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, 26 June 2014, where the applicant had not committed crimes using violence, in the present case both of the applicant's convictions had involved the use of violence and the second one had caused grievous bodily harm to the victim.
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 32737/16

  AKOPDZHANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Unlike in the case of Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, 26 June 2014, where the applicant did not commit crimes involving the use of violence, in the present case the applicant's second conviction had been for causing serious bodily harm to his victim.
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 66729/16

  AKÇAY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  For the relevant Council of Europe material, see Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, § 37, 26 June 2014.
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 7994/14

  USTINOVA v. RUSSIA

  It cannot therefore be claimed that domestic remedies have not been exhausted (see Vachkovi v. Bulgaria, no. 2747/02, § 58, 8 July 2010; Raichinov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 47579/99, 1 February 2005; and, mutatis mutandis, Öztürk v. Turkey [GC], no. 22479/93, §§ 45-46, ECHR 1999-VI, see also Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, §§ 43 and 61, 26 June 2014, in which the Court found that the enforcement of an exclusion order would constitute a violation of Article 8 in respect of both the foreign applicant and his Russian wife).
• EGMR - 75947/14 (anhängig)

  RASULOV v. RUSSIA

  Were the proceedings in which the applicant's expulsion from Russia was ordered compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did the provision under with the applicant was charged (Article 18.8 § 3 of the Code of Administrative Offence) allow the domestic courts to assess the proportionality of the interference and to waive, if necessary, the application of the expulsion measure (see Gablishvili v. Russia, no. 39428/12, §§ 47, 51-53 and 60, 26 June 2014)? The Government are requested to submit the relevant case-law of the Russian courts in the form of full judgments (as opposed to partial citations or extracts).