Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AVCI v. DENMARK

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AVCI v. DENMARK

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

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  Thus in, for example, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34 13 February 2001, Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 66, 27 October 2005, and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, given the specific circumstances in each case, the Court found the imposition of a definitive expulsion order in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

  In Bousarra v. France (no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010) the Court held that it could not reasonably be argued that, as a result of the offences committed, the applicant constituted an extremely serious threat to ‎‎public order ("une menace d'une gravité extrême pour l'ordre public") which would have justified a measure of‎‎ final expulsion from‎ ‎French territory (see, similarly, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34, 13 February 2001; see also Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, § 66, 27 October 2005).

  Furthermore, in both cases the applicants were not previously warned about the possibility of expulsion or had a conditional expulsion order imposed, an aspect to which the Court has attached importance in its case-law (ibid., § 41, with further references to Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, 27 October 2005; and Munir Johana, cited above).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 60286/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  The Court reiterates in this respect that it has held, on many previous occasions, that it understands - in view of the devastating effects drugs have on people's lives and on society as a whole - why the authorities show great firmness to those who actively contribute to the spread of this scourge (see, among others, Amrollahi v. Denmark, cited above, § 37; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 49, 10 April 2012; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 89, 3 July 2012; and Salem v. Denmark, cited above, § 66).

  Moreover, at paragraph 37 of its reasoning, the majority observe that the present case resembles the situation in Balogun v. the United Kingdom (no. 60286/09, 10 April 2012), where the Court found no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

• EGMR, 28.07.2020 - 25402/14

  PORMES v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  However, as already argued elsewhere (see, inter alia, Judge Ranzoni's dissenting opinion in Pormes v. the Netherlands, no. 25402/14, 28 July 2020, paragraph 18 with further references), if such a person has never lived in a country other than the "host" country, or done so for only a short part of his or her early childhood, it is this "host" country which should bear responsibility for the person's upbringing and his or her criminal behaviour.

• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 40660/08

  Caroline von Hannover kann keine Untersagung von Bildveröffentlichungen über sie …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  40660/08 and 60641/08, § 107, ECHR 2012, and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 88, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  The Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity to prevent or put right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 40601/05

  Rechtssache M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  In the present case, however, the Court does not call into question that the applicant's crime leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see also, inter alia, Mutlag v Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, and Balogun v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 14.09.2017 - 41215/14

  NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  The Court points out in this connection that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, although opinions may differ on the outcome of a judgment, "where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts" (see, among many others, Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017, Levakovic v. Denmark, no. 7841/14, § 45, 23 October 2018; see also, mutatis mutandis, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 7841/14

  LEVAKOVIC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  The Court points out in this connection that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, although opinions may differ on the outcome of a judgment, "where the balancing exercise has been undertaken by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court's case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts" (see, among many others, Ndidi v. the United Kingdom, no. 41215/14, § 76, 14 September 2017, Levakovic v. Denmark, no. 7841/14, § 45, 23 October 2018; see also, mutatis mutandis, Von Hannover v. Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail, for example, in Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 22-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark, (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 40240/19

  The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail, for example, in Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 22-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark, (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 41643/19

  ABDI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH, 23.04.2026 - C-446/24

  Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts …

  Rn. 43 Diese Auslegung wird durch die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte bestätigt, wonach der Umstand, dass ein Drittstaatsangehöriger eine schwerwiegende Gefahr für die öffentliche Ordnung wie etwa eine terroristische Gefahr darstellt, für sich genommen für die Annahme ausreichen kann, dass die zuständigen nationalen Behörden in Anbetracht einer Prüfung aller relevanten Umstände, die die Situation dieser Person kennzeichnen, berechtigt sind, gegen diesen Drittstaatsangehörigen nicht nur eine Ausweisung aus dem nationalen Hoheitsgebiet, sondern auch ein unbefristetes Einreiseverbot zu verfügen, ohne dass ihnen vorgeworfen werden könnte, damit Art. 8 der am 4. November 1950 in Rom unterzeichneten Europäischen Konvention zum Schutz der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten über das Recht auf Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens verletzt zu haben (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 25. März 2010, Mutlag/Deutschland, CE:ECHR:2010:0325JUD004060105, §§ 60 bis 63, EGMR, 30. November 2021, Avci/Dänemark, CE:ECHR:2021:1130JUD004024019, §§ 35 bis 39, EGMR, 22. März 2022, Laraba/Dänemark, CE:ECHR:2022:0322DEC002678119, §§ 32 bis 35, und EGMR, 5. September 2023, Al-Masudi/Dänemark, CE:ECHR:2023:0905JUD003574021, §§ 33 bis 36).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.10.2025 - C-446/24

  Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Einwanderungspolitik - Richtlinie 2008/115/EG - …

  {FN:38} Vgl. u. a. Urteil des EGMR vom 30. November 2021, Avci/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2021:1130JUD004024019, § 37 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).

  {FN:39} Vgl. u. a. Urteil des EGMR vom 30. November 2021, Avci/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2021:1130JUD004024019, § 38 und die dort angeführte Rechtsprechung).

• OVG Bremen, 03.09.2025 - 2 LA 217/23

  Ausweisung; besondere Schwierigkeiten; faktischer Inländer; Generalprävention; …

  Kenntnisse der kurdischen Sprache dürfen bei der Ausweisung eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen, der kein Türkisch spricht, zulasten des Betroffenen in die Abwägung nach Art. 8 Abs. 2 EMRK eingestellt werden (vgl. EGMR , Urt. v. 30.11.2021 - 40240/19, Avci ./. Dänemark, BeckRS 2021, 36600, Rn. 8 f., 34, 38 f.).

• VG München, 23.06.2022 - M 10 K 20.1034

  Ausweisung eies faktischen Inländers bei vollständiger "linguistischer" …

  Auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte betont im Rahmen seiner Rechtsprechung zu Art. 8 Abs. 2 EMRK die verheerenden Auswirkungen, welcher der Konsum von Drogen für Individuen sowie die Gesellschaft als Ganzes hat, sowie sein Verständnis, dass die mitgliedstaatlichen Behörden hiergegen rigoros vorgehen (vgl. etwa speziell zur Verurteilung wegen Handeltreibens mit 1 Kilogramm Kokain: EGMR, U.v. 30.11.2021 - Avci/Dänemark, Nr. 40240/19 - HUDOC Rn. 30 = BeckRS 2021, 36600).
• EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  MIARI v. DENMARK

  Rn. 42 The Court does not call into question the finding that the applicant's offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Mutlag, cited above, §§ 61-62; Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, §§ 30 and 37, 30 November 2021; and Savuran, § 36, cited above).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 3645/23

  SAVURAN v. DENMARK

  Rn. 36 The Court does not call into question the finding that the applicant's offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that he posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, §§ 30 and 37, 30 November 2021, and Mutlag, cited above, §§ 61-62; see also, mutatis mutandis, Sarac, § 34; Nguyen, § 35; Noorzae, § 32; and Sharifi, § 33, all cited above).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 44810/20

  NOORZAE v. DENMARK

  The crimes were of such a nature that they could have had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, § 30, 30 November 2021, and Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, § 33, 14 September 2021, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 19.03.2026 - 15860/22

  HUSSAIN v. DENMARK

  Rn. 7 The Court also notes the numerous cases against Denmark concerning the expulsion of settled immigrants (see, among other authorities, Miari v. Denmark, no. 2852/24, 15 July 2025; Sharafane v. Denmark, no. 5199/23, 12 November 2024; Al-Habeeb v. Denmark, no. 14171/23, 12 November 2024; Savuran v. Denmark, no. 3645/23, 12 November 2024; Winther v. Denmark, no. 9588/21, 12 November 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, 5 September 2023; Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, 5 September 2023; Al-Masudi v. Denmark, no. 35740/21, 5 September 2023; Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, 30 November 2021; and Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, 14 September 2021), and concerning the expulsion of immigrants who entered the country as adults (see, for example, Assem Hassan Ali v. Denmark, no. 25593/14, 23 October 2018; Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, 1 December 2016; Hamesevic v. Denmark (dec.), no. 25748/15, 16 May 2017; Lagergren v. Denmark (dec.), no. 18668/03, 16 October 2006; and Bajrami v. Denmark (dec.) [Committee], no. 24379/20, 22 February 2022).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 35740/21

  AL-MASUDI v. DENMARK

  Those crimes were of such a nature that they could have had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, § 30, 30 November 2021, and Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, § 33, 14 September 2021, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 21783/22

  CAKMAK v. DENMARK

  Rn. 4 It also notes the recent cases against Denmark concerning expulsion of settled immigrants (see, among others, Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, 5 September 2023; Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, 5 September 2023; Al-Masudi v. Denmark, no. 35740/21, 5 September 2023; Avci v. Denmark, no. 40240/19, 30 November 2021; Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, 14 September 2021; Laraba v. Denmark (dec.), no. 26781/19, 22 March 2022; Adam Johansen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 27801/19, 1 February 2022; and Hussain v. Denmark (dec.), [Committee], no. 31572/19, 22 February 2022).
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 54157/21

  KURLAND v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 60766/19

  FATEH v. DENMARK and 1 other application
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 32739/21

  PAYAM v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 61126/19

  BELGACEM v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 18646/22

  GOMA v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 25.01.2024 - 11093/22

  DAVUD KIBAR v. DENMARK