Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MITCHELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EKMR, 06.07.1982 - 9285/81

  X., Y. et Z. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  The Court also recalls that whilst a right to enter or remain in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see inter alia No. 9213/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R.24, p. 239, and No. 25439/94, Dec 5.4.95, D.R 81-B, p. 142), the exclusion or removal of a person from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside may raise issues under Article 8 (see inter alia No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160; No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205; No. 23938/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished; No 24381/94, Dec. 31.8.94, unpublished, and No. 25073/94, Dec. 28.2.96, unpublished).

  Whether removal or exclusion of a family member from a Contracting State is incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 will depend on a number of factors: the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one of them, whether there are any factors of immigration control (eg. history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order (eg. serious or persistent offences) weighing in favour of expulsion (see eg. Nos 9285/81, Dec 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205, and 11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87).

• EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 23938/94

  SORABJEE v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  The Court also recalls that whilst a right to enter or remain in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see inter alia No. 9213/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R.24, p. 239, and No. 25439/94, Dec 5.4.95, D.R 81-B, p. 142), the exclusion or removal of a person from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside may raise issues under Article 8 (see inter alia No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160; No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205; No. 23938/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished; No 24381/94, Dec. 31.8.94, unpublished, and No. 25073/94, Dec. 28.2.96, unpublished).

  The Court recalls that where there are children of the marriage who enjoy the nationality of the host state, an essential question is whether the children are of an age when they can be expected to adapt to the change in environment (see No. 23938/94, loc. cit., and No. 24865/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished).

• EKMR, 06.03.1982 - 9088/80

  X. c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  The Court also recalls that whilst a right to enter or remain in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see inter alia No. 9213/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R.24, p. 239, and No. 25439/94, Dec 5.4.95, D.R 81-B, p. 142), the exclusion or removal of a person from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside may raise issues under Article 8 (see inter alia No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160; No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205; No. 23938/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished; No 24381/94, Dec. 31.8.94, unpublished, and No. 25073/94, Dec. 28.2.96, unpublished).

• EKMR, 13.07.1987 - 11970/86

  O. and O. L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  Whether removal or exclusion of a family member from a Contracting State is incompatible with the requirements of Article 8 will depend on a number of factors: the extent to which family life is effectively ruptured, whether there are insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of one of them, whether there are any factors of immigration control (eg. history of breaches of immigration law) or considerations of public order (eg. serious or persistent offences) weighing in favour of expulsion (see eg. Nos 9285/81, Dec 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205, and 11970/86, Dec. 13.7.87).
• EKMR, 31.08.1994 - 24381/94

  KAMARA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  The Court also recalls that whilst a right to enter or remain in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see inter alia No. 9213/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R.24, p. 239, and No. 25439/94, Dec 5.4.95, D.R 81-B, p. 142), the exclusion or removal of a person from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside may raise issues under Article 8 (see inter alia No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160; No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205; No. 23938/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished; No 24381/94, Dec. 31.8.94, unpublished, and No. 25073/94, Dec. 28.2.96, unpublished).
• EKMR, 28.02.1996 - 25073/94

  LARBIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  The Court also recalls that whilst a right to enter or remain in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see inter alia No. 9213/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R.24, p. 239, and No. 25439/94, Dec 5.4.95, D.R 81-B, p. 142), the exclusion or removal of a person from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside may raise issues under Article 8 (see inter alia No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160; No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205; No. 23938/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished; No 24381/94, Dec. 31.8.94, unpublished, and No. 25073/94, Dec. 28.2.96, unpublished).
• EKMR, 23.10.1995 - 24865/94

  JARAMILLO v. the UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  The Court recalls that where there are children of the marriage who enjoy the nationality of the host state, an essential question is whether the children are of an age when they can be expected to adapt to the change in environment (see No. 23938/94, loc. cit., and No. 24865/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished).
• EKMR, 05.04.1995 - 25439/94

  EL MAZIANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.1998 - 40447/98

  The Court also recalls that whilst a right to enter or remain in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see inter alia No. 9213/80, Dec. 5.5.81, D.R.24, p. 239, and No. 25439/94, Dec 5.4.95, D.R 81-B, p. 142), the exclusion or removal of a person from a country where his close relatives reside or have the right to reside may raise issues under Article 8 (see inter alia No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 160; No. 9285/81, Dec. 6.7.82, D.R. 29, p. 205; No. 23938/94, Dec. 23.10.95, unpublished; No 24381/94, Dec. 31.8.94, unpublished, and No. 25073/94, Dec. 28.2.96, unpublished).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.10.2014 - 12738/10

  [ENG]

  En vertu d'une jurisprudence constante de la Cour, lorsque tel est le cas ce n'est en principe que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles que l'éloignement du membre de la famille ressortissant d'un pays tiers emporte violation de l'article 8 (Abdulaziz, Cabales et Balkandali c. Royaume-Uni, 28 mai 1985, § 68, série A no 94, Mitchell c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 40447/98, 24 novembre 1998, Ajayi et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 27663/95, 22 juin 1999, M. c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 25087/06, 24 juin 2008, Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer, précité, § 39, Arvelo Aponte, précité, §§ 57-58, et Butt, précité, § 78).
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 265/07

  Ausweisung, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Kinder, Eltern-Kind-Verhältnis, EMRK, …

  Where this is the case the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, § 68; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; and Ajayi and Others, cited above; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibidem).] 58. In this regard the Court first observes that when the first applicant arrived and applied for asylum in Norway on 25 August 2001, he was an adult and had no links to the country.
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 47017/09

  Abschiebung, Pakistan, Norwegen, Aufenthaltstitel, Verwurzelung, vorsätzliche …

  Where this is the case the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, § 68; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998, and Ajayi and Others, cited above; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).".

• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 61292/00

  USEINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court has previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998, and Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  Y v. RUSSIA

  Where this is the case the removal of the non-national family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali, cited above, § 68; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; and Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999; Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).
• EGMR, 17.04.2018 - 29790/14

  GULIYEV AND SHEINA v. RUSSIA

  It is the Court's well-established case-law that, where this is the case, it is likely only to be in exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (see Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998, and Butt, cited above, § 78).
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 21392/09

  [FRE]

  La Cour a précédemment jugé que lorsque tel est le cas, ce n'est que dans des circonstances tout à fait exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n'ayant pas la nationalité de l'État hôte constitue une violation de l'article 8 (Mitchell c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 40447/98, 24 novembre 1998, et Ajayi et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 27663/95, 22 juin 1999).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 25579/09

  [FRE]

  La Cour a précédemment jugé que lorsque tel est le cas ce n'est que dans des circonstances particulièrement exceptionnelles que le renvoi du membre de la famille n'ayant pas la nationalité de l'Etat hôte constitue une violation de l'article 8 (Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c. Pays-Bas, no 50435/99, § 39, CEDH 2006-I, Mitchell c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 40447/98, 24 novembre 1998, et Ajayi et autres c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 27663/95, 22 juin 1999).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  OLGUN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Where this is the case, the removal - the Court would add: or exclusion - of the non-national (or non-lawfully resident) family member would be incompatible with Article 8 only in exceptional circumstances (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 68, Series A no. 94; Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998; Ajayi and Others, cited above; and Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer, cited above, ibid.).
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 13594/03

  PRIYA v. DENMARK

  The Court has previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8 (Mitchell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40447/98, 24 November 1998, and Ajayi and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27663/95, 22 June 1999).Thus, a distinction must be drawn between those seeking entry into a country to pursue their newly established family life; those who had an established family life before one of the spouses obtained settlement in another country; and those who seek to remain in a country where they have already established close family life and other ties for a reasonable period of time (cf. e.g. Khannam{{Kursiv| v. United Kingdom (dec.) no 14112/88, DR 59, pp.
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 25087/06

  M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM