Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAMSONNIKOV v. ESTONIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible 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)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  The Court reiterates that, as Article 8 protects the right to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and can sometimes embrace aspects of an individual's social identity, it must be accepted that the totality of social ties between settled migrants such as the applicant and the community in which they are living constitutes part of the concept of "private life" within the meaning of Article 8 (see Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, § 63, ECHR 2008, and Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 59, ECHR 2006-XII).

  In our view this approach is not in line with the case-law already established in the cases of Üner v. the Netherlands, (judgment of 18 October 2006, Application no. 46410/99) and Maslov v. Austria (judgment of 23 June 2008, Application no. 1638/03, § 74).

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  MARCKX v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  In the Marckx judgment it observed that'"family life", within the meaning of Article 8, includes at least the ties between near relatives, for instance those between grandparents and grandchildren, since such relatives may play a considerable part in family life" (see Marckx v. Belgium, judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 21, § 45).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  "54. The Court reaffirms at the outset that a State is entitled, as a matter of international law and subject to its treaty obligations, to control the entry of aliens into its territory and their residence there (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94, and Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  BOULTIF v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  It is important to note that the fundamental principles that laid the foundations for the Court's subsequent case-law concerning the application of Article 8 of the Convention to cases involving the expulsion, following conviction, of foreign nationals legally resident in the host country are well established in the Boultif judgment (Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, ECHR 2001-IX) and have been further developed in the Üner case (§§ 54-55 and 57-58) and later in Maslov v. Austria.
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 31519/96

  KWAKYE-NTI ET DUFIE contre les PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  However, the Court has previously held that the existence of "family life" cannot be relied on by applicants in relation to adults who do not belong to the core family and who have not been shown to have been dependent members of the applicants" family (see Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, § 97, ECHR 2003-X; see also Kwakye-Nti and Dufie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31519/96, 7 November 2000, and, more recently, A.H. Khan, loc.
• EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07

  MIAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  Indeed it will be a rare case where a settled migrant will be unable to demonstrate that his or her deportation would interfere with his or her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 6222/10, § 32, 20 December 2011, and Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 17, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 6222/10

  A.H. KHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  Indeed it will be a rare case where a settled migrant will be unable to demonstrate that his or her deportation would interfere with his or her private life as guaranteed by Article 8 (see A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 6222/10, § 32, 20 December 2011, and Miah v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 53080/07, § 17, 27 April 2010).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 21783/08

  ANAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 52178/10

  cit., and Anam v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 21783/08, 7 June 2011).

• EGMR, 25.04.2017 - 41697/12

  KRASNIQI v. AUSTRIA

  The relevant criteria to be applied, in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society, was set out in, inter alia, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012; and Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012.
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 31039/11

  NOVRUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Indeed, it would be a rare case in which a settled migrant would be unable to demonstrate that his or her removal would interfere with his or her "private life" (see Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, §§ 81-82, 3 July 2012, and A.H. Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 6222/10, § 32, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 39428/12

  GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA

  Lastly, they submitted that the first applicant would not be able to return to Russia for five years following his administrative expulsion and submitted that, in their view, that period was not excessively long (here they referred to Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, 3 July 2012, in which the Court found no violation in respect of a three-year period, and Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008, in which the Court found a violation in respect of a ten-year period).

 
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 31572/19

  HUSSAIN v. DENMARK

  The Court finds reason to add that the crimes committed by the applicant, including the final ones leading to the unconditional expulsion order, were such as to have serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 72, 12 January 2021; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 89, 3 July 2012; and Salem v. Denmark, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 25593/14

  ASSEM HASSAN ALI v. DENMARK

  The relevant criteria to be applied, in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society, were set out in, inter alia, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], cited above, §§ 72-73; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012; and Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 64, 1 December 2016.
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 33809/15

  ALAM v. DENMARK

  The relevant criteria to be applied in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society were set out in, inter alia, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012; and Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012.
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 25748/15

  HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK

  The relevant criteria to be applied in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society were set out, inter alia, in Üner v. the Netherlands ([GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII), Maslov v. Austria ([GC], no. 1638/03, §§ 72-73, ECHR 2008), Balogun v. the United Kingdom (no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012) and Samsonnikov v. Estonia, (no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 01.02.2022 - 16588/20

  AHMED v. DENMARK

  Moreover, it had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 72, 12 January 2021; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 89, 3 July 2012; and Salem, cited above, § 66).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 74411/16

  SAID ABDUL SALAM MUBARAK v. DENMARK

  The relevant criteria to be applied, in determining whether an interference is necessary in a democratic society, were set out in, inter alia, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, §§ 54-55 and 57-58, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], cited above, §§ 72-73; Balogun v. the United Kingdom, no. 60286/09, § 46, 10 April 2012; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 86, 3 July 2012; and Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 64, 1 December 2016.
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 17803/20

  MAVRIC v. DENMARK

  The Court finds reason to add that two of the crimes concerned robberies, which had serious consequences for the lives of others (see, for example, Khan v. Denmark, no. 26957/19, § 72, 12 January 2021; Samsonnikov v. Estonia, no. 52178/10, § 89, 3 July 2012; and Salem v. Denmark, no. 77036/11, § 66, 1 December 2016).
• EGMR, 22.02.2022 - 20579/20

  ABDULJI v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 66729/16

  AKÇAY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2018 - 47781/10

  ZEZEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 9183/16

  SINGLA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 42517/15

  YURDAER v. DENMARK