Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHARAFANE v. DENMARK

  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHARAFANE v. DENMARK

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 44810/20

  NOORZAE v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  As a result of the amendment, when carrying out a subsequent review of whether an expulsion order should be set aside, the Danish courts are now able to impose a re-entry ban for a shorter period than that previously specified, irrespective of when the criminal offence was committed, if they find, at the time of the review, that a shortening of the period is required to ensure that the expulsion order falls within the scope of Denmark's international obligations (see also, inter alia, Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, §§ 14-15, 5 September 2023).

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when they assessed the applicant's case (see, also, Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 27, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 28, 9 April 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 25, 5 September 2023; and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).

• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 77036/11

  SALEM v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  Rn. 11 The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).

  Rn. 48 The Court finds it established that there was an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8, that the expulsion order and the re-entry ban were "in accordance with the law", and that they pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime (see also, for example, Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 61, 1 December 2016).

• EGMR, 25.03.2010 - 40601/05

  Rechtssache M. gegen DEUTSCHLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  One of the elements relied on in this connection has been whether the offence leading to the expulsion order was of such a nature that the person in question posed a serious threat to public order (see, among other authorities, Ezzouhdi v. France, no. 47160/99, § 34, 13 February 2001 and Bousarra v. France, no. 25672/07, § 53, 23 September 2010, in which the Court found that the individuals in question did not pose a serious threat to public order; see also Mutlag v. Germany, no. 40601/05, §§ 61-62, 25 March 2010, in which the Court found that the person in question did pose a serious threat to public order).

• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 41643/19

  ABDI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  Rn. 56 In the present case, 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 at the time (see, among other authorities, Abdi v. Denmark, no. 41643/19, § 39, 14 September 2021; Mutlag, cited above, §§ 61-62; see also, mutatis mutandis, Sarac, § 34; Nguyen, § 35; Noorzae, § 32; and Sharifi, § 33, all cited above).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19866/21

  SARAC v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when they assessed the applicant's case (see, also, Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 27, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 28, 9 April 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 25, 5 September 2023; and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 31434/21

  SHARIFI v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when they assessed the applicant's case (see, also, Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 27, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 28, 9 April 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 25, 5 September 2023; and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 2116/21

  NGUYEN v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when they assessed the applicant's case (see, also, Sarac v. Denmark, no. 19866/21, § 27, 9 April 2024; Nguyen v. Denmark, no. 2116/21, § 28, 9 April 2024; Noorzae v. Denmark, no. 44810/20, § 25, 5 September 2023; and Sharifi v. Denmark, no. 31434/21, § 25, 5 September 2023).
• EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 32231/02

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  Indeed, the Court notes in this context that the duration of a ban on re-entry, in particular whether such a ban is of limited or unlimited duration, is an element to which it has attached importance in its case-law (see, for example, Yilmaz v. Germany, no. 52853/99, §§ 47-49, 17 April 2003; Radovanovic v. Austria, no. 42703/98, § 37, 22 April 2004; Keles v. Germany, no. 32231/02, §§ 65-66, 27 October 2005; Külekci, cited above, § 51; Veljkovic-Jukic v. Switzerland, no. 59534/14, § 57, 21 July 2020; and Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 79, 12 January 2021).".
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30441/09

  KÜLEKCI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  In addition, the Court will have regard to the duration of the exclusion order (ibid., § 98; see also Külekci v. Austria, no. 30441/09, § 39, 1 June 2017, and Azerkane v. the Netherlands, no. 3138/16, § 70, 2 June 2020).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 56803/18

  MUNIR JOHANA v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 5199/23

  Rn. 11 The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021) and Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 12.01.2021 - 26957/19

  KHAN v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 3138/16

  AZERKANE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 59534/14

  VELJKOVIC-JUKIC c. SUISSE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 14983/25

  ALLABED v. DENMARK

  He referred to Sharafane v. Denmark (no. 5199/23, 12 November 2024).

  Rn. 13 The relevant provisions of the Aliens Act (Udlændingeloven) relating to expulsion have been set out in detail in, for example, Munir Johana v. Denmark (no. 56803/18, §§ 23-26, 12 January 2021), Salem v. Denmark (no. 77036/11, §§ 49-52, 1 December 2016) and Sharafane v. Denmark (no. 5199/23, §§ 11-14, 12 November 2024).

  In that connection the applicant referred to the Court's finding in Sharafane v. Denmark (no. 5199/23, §§ 61-74, 12 November 2024).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 02.10.2025 - C-446/24

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

  {FN:44} Vgl. zum rein theoretischen Charakter der Rückkehrmöglichkeit im Fall eines zeitlich begrenzten Einreiseverbots Urteile des EGMR vom 12. November 2024, Sharafane/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2024:1112JUD000519923, § 72), und vom 12. November 2024, Al-Habeeb/Dänemark (CE:ECHR:2024:1112JUD001417123, § 71).
• EGMR, 15.07.2025 - 2852/24

  MIARI v. DENMARK

  The Court is therefore called upon to examine whether "very serious reasons" of that kind were adequately adduced and examined by the national authorities when assessing the applicant's case (see also Savuran, cited above, § 28; Sharafane v. Denmark, no. 5199/23, § 49, 12 November 2024; and Al-Habeeb v. Denmark, no. 14171/23, § 52, 12 November 2024).

• 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 - 13089/26 (anhängig)

  AL-BADRI v. DENMARK

  Having regard, in particular, to the fact that the applicant's re-entry ban was reduced by virtue of section 32(5) of the Aliens Act, would the order to expel him from the country with a 6-year re-entry ban be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, Sharafane v. Denmark, no. 5199/23, 12 November 2024, and Al-Habeeb v. Denmark, no. 14171/23, 12 November 2024)?.
• EGMR - 18315/26 (anhängig)

  ALAZEM v. DENMARK

  Having regard, in particular, to the fact that the applicant's re-entry ban was reduced by virtue of section 32(5) of the Aliens Act, would the order to expel him from the country with a 6-year re-entry ban be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, Sharafane v. Denmark, no. 5199/23, 12 November 2024, and Al-Habeeb v. Denmark, no. 14171/23, 12 November 2024)?.
• EGMR - 17821/26 (anhängig)

  MOHSENI v. DENMARK

  Having regard, in particular, to the fact that the applicant's re-entry ban was reduced by virtue of section 32(5) of the Aliens Act, would the order to expel him from the country with a 4-year re-entry ban be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see, notably, Sharafane v. Denmark, no. 5199/23, 12 November 2024, and Al-Habeeb v. Denmark, no. 14171/23, 12 November 2024)?.
• EGMR - 15078/25 (anhängig)

  MOHAMUD v. DENMARK

  Having regard, in particular, to the fact that the applicant was sentenced to 1 year and 9 months' imprisonment, and that the re-entry ban was reduced by virtue of section 32(5) of the Aliens Act, would the order to expel him from the country with a 6-year re-entry ban be in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Sharafane v. Denmark, no. 5199/23, 12 November 2024 and Al-Habeeb v. Denmark, no. 14171/23,12 November 2024)?.