Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRANJKO v. SWEDEN

  Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99

  In this connection, the Court notes that, in assessing whether a deportation involves such a trauma that it in itself constitutes a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, its physical and mental effects and the state of health of the person concerned are to be taken into account (see Eur. Court HR, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31, §§ 83-84, and the opinion of the Commission, p. 87, §§ 87-90).
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99

  The Court recalls that the expulsion of a person from a country in which close members of his family live may amount to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his family life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see, among other authorities, the Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, pp. 19-20, §§ 43-46).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99

  However, an expulsion decision may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of the State, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he or she is to be expelled (see, among other authorities, the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, §§ 102-103).
• EKMR, 16.12.1988 - 14209/88

  ALIBAKS and Others v. the NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99

  Moreover, the fact that a number of aliens receive similar decisions does not lead to the conclusion that there is a collective expulsion when each person concerned has been given the opportunity to put arguments against his expulsion to the competent authorities on an individual basis (see application no. 14209/88, decision of 16 December 1988, DR 59, p. 274).
• EKMR, 14.09.1995 - 27249/95

  LWANGA AND SEMPUNGO v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99

  In this connection, it is to be noted that, should the applicant be taken into compulsory psychiatric care due to his mental problems, the deportation could under no circumstances take place without the permission of the chief physician responsible for his care (see application no. 27249/95, decision of 14 September 1995, DR 83, p. 91).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01

  PELLUMBI c. FRANCE

  Dans la mesure où le requérant ne court pas actuellement un risque direct d'éloignement du territoire français, il ne peut en conséquence se prétendre victime d'une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention au sens de son article 34 (Benamar c. France (déc.), no 42216/98, 14 novembre 2000 ; Mehemi (no 2) c. France, no 53470/99, CEDH 2003-IV, 10 avril 2003 ; Pranko c. Suède (déc.), no 45925/99, 23 février 1999).
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06

  A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, § 111, Series A no. 215), Pranjko v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 45925/99, 23 February 1999) and Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands ((dec.), nos.