Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENAMAR v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 31519/96

  KWAKYE-NTI ET DUFIE contre les PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  In these circumstances the respondent State cannot be said to have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants' interests on the one hand and its own interest in controlling immigration on the other (see Ramos Andrade v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53675/00, 6 July 2004; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Adnane v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 50568/99, 6 November 2001; Mensah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47042/99, 9 October 2001; Lahnifi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39329/98; 13 February 2001; and Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).
• EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 53102/99

  CHANDRA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  In these circumstances the respondent State cannot be said to have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants' interests on the one hand and its own interest in controlling immigration on the other (see Ramos Andrade v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53675/00, 6 July 2004; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Adnane v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 50568/99, 6 November 2001; Mensah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47042/99, 9 October 2001; Lahnifi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39329/98; 13 February 2001; and Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 39391/98

  P.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  Moreover, where immigration is concerned, Article 8 cannot be considered to impose on a State a general obligation to respect immigrants' choice of the country of their matrimonial residence and to authorise family reunion in its territory (see Gül v. Switzerland, cited above, loc. cit., Ahmut v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 67, and P.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39391/98, 7 November 2000).

• EGMR, 06.11.2001 - 50568/99

  ADNANE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  In these circumstances the respondent State cannot be said to have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants' interests on the one hand and its own interest in controlling immigration on the other (see Ramos Andrade v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53675/00, 6 July 2004; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Adnane v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 50568/99, 6 November 2001; Mensah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47042/99, 9 October 2001; Lahnifi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39329/98; 13 February 2001; and Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).
• EGMR, 06.07.2004 - 53675/00

  RAMOS ANDRADE v. the NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  In these circumstances the respondent State cannot be said to have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants' interests on the one hand and its own interest in controlling immigration on the other (see Ramos Andrade v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53675/00, 6 July 2004; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Adnane v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 50568/99, 6 November 2001; Mensah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47042/99, 9 October 2001; Lahnifi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39329/98; 13 February 2001; and Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 39329/98

  LAHNIFI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  In these circumstances the respondent State cannot be said to have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants' interests on the one hand and its own interest in controlling immigration on the other (see Ramos Andrade v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53675/00, 6 July 2004; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Adnane v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 50568/99, 6 November 2001; Mensah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47042/99, 9 October 2001; Lahnifi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39329/98; 13 February 2001; and Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).
• EGMR, 09.10.2001 - 47042/99

  MENSAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  In these circumstances the respondent State cannot be said to have failed to strike a fair balance between the applicants' interests on the one hand and its own interest in controlling immigration on the other (see Ramos Andrade v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53675/00, 6 July 2004; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Adnane v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 50568/99, 6 November 2001; Mensah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 47042/99, 9 October 2001; Lahnifi v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 39329/98; 13 February 2001; and Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.10.2014 - 12738/10

  [ENG]

  La Cour a déjà dit que, en général, les personnes qui se trouvent dans cette situation ne sont pas fondées à espérer qu'un droit de séjour leur sera octroyé (Chandra et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 53102/99, 13 mai 2003, Benamar c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 43786/04, 5 avril 2005, Priya c. Danemark (déc.) no 13594/03, 6 juillet 2006, Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c. Pays-Bas, no 50435/99, § 43, CEDH 2006-I, Darren Omoregie et autres c. Norvège, no 265/07, § 64, 31 juillet 2008, et B.V. c. Suède (déc.), no 57442/11, 13 novembre 2012).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 56971/10

  [FRE]

  The Court concludes that it would be unduly difficult for the applicants to enjoy family life together anywhere but in Switzerland (see Tuquabo-Tekle and Others, cited above, §§ 47-48; Şen, cited above, § 40; a contrario I.A.A. and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 44; Chandra and Others, cited above; Benamar v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43786/04, 5 April 2005).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33917/12

  DJOKABA LAMBI LONGA v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Finally, States are, in principle, under no obligation to allow foreign nationals to await the outcome of immigration proceedings on their territory (see, mutatis mutandis, Nsona v. the Netherlands, 28 November 1996, § 93, Reports 1996-V; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Benamar and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43786/04, 5 April 2005; and Haydarie and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 8876/04, 20 October 2005).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 1859/03

  OLGUN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Domestic law and practice relevant to the present case are set out in Benamar v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 43786/04, 5 April 2005.