Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHANDRA AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 39391/98

  P.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2003 - 53102/99

  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, unreported).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.07.2021 - 6697/18

  Syrien: Wartefrist von 3 Jahren für Familienzusammenführung widerspricht Artikel …

  There were no insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of the person requesting family reunification (see, for example, Gül v. Switzerland, no. 23218/94, 19 February 1996; Ahmut v. Netherlands, no. 21702/93, 28 November 1996; Chandra and Others v. Netherlands no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Berisha v. Switzerland, no. 948/12, 30 July 2013; Nacic and Others v. Sweden, cited above; and I.A.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25960/13, 8 March 2016).
• 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).

  Or, dès lors qu'elle avait choisi de ne pas solliciter de visa de séjour temporaire depuis le Surinam avant de se rendre aux Pays-Bas, la requérante n'était nullement en droit d'espérer obtenir un permis de séjour en mettant les autorités néerlandaises devant le fait accompli de sa présence dans le pays (Ramos Andrade c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 53675/00, 6 juillet 2004 ; Chandra et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 53102/99, 13 mai 2003 ; Adnane c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 50568/99, 6 novembre 2001 ; Mensah c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 47042/99, 9 octobre 2001 ; Lahnifi c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 39329/98 ; 13 février 2001 ; Kwakye-Nti et Dufie c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 31519/96, 7 novembre 2000).

• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 265/07

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

  64. Against this background the Court does not consider that the first and second applicants, by confronting the Norwegian authorities with the first applicant's presence in the country as a fait accompli, were entitled to expect that any right of residence would be conferred upon him (see Roslina Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Yash Priya v. Denmark (dec.) 13594/03; 6 July 2006; cf.

• EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 13258/18

  B.F. ET D.E. c. SUISSE

  The Court had accepted in several cases that the Contracting States might impose requirements on persons seeking family reunification in the form of minimum income requirements and/or requirements that the person in question not be receiving welfare benefits (they referred to Konstatinov, cited above, § 50; Haydarie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 8876/04, 20 October 2005; Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; and Gül v. Switzerland, no. 23218/94, 19 February 1996).

  There were no insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of the person requesting family reunification (see, for example, Gül v. Switzerland, no. 23218/94, 19 February 1996; Ahmut v. Netherlands, no. 21702/93, 28 November 1996; Chandra and Others v. Netherlands, no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Berisha v. Switzerland, no. 948/12, 30 July 2013; Nacic and Others v. Sweden, cited above; and I.A.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25960/13, 8 March 2016).

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 56971/10

  [FRE]

  It submitted that the case-law of the Court was not clear as regards the decisive date for determining the age of a child in the context of family reunification, as the Court had relied on the date the request was first introduced on the domestic level in the case of Tuquabo-Tekle and Others, cited above, whereas it had relied on the date of the last domestic decision in the case of Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003.
• VGH Bayern, 06.03.2008 - 10 B 06.2961

  Zur Sperrwirkung für die Erteilung von Aufenthaltstiteln bei Ablehnung eines …

  Auch die erteilten Duldungen, die auf die fehlenden Ausweispapiere sowie die ungeklärte Staatsangehörigkeit seiner Kinder zurückzuführen sind, ließen nach § 60 a Abs. 3 AufenthG die Ausreisepflicht unberührt Da demnach der weitere Aufenthalt des Klägers und seiner Familie zu keinem Zeitpunkt rechtmäßig war, er vielmehr durch seine Einreise die deutschen Behörden vor vollendete Tatsachen gestellt hatte, können weder er noch seine Familie berechtigterweise erwarten, ihr Familienleben im Bundesgebiet fortsetzen zu können (vgl. EGMR vom 5.9.2000 Nr. 44328/98, Solomon, , und vom 13.5.2003 Nr. 53102/99, Chandra, ).
• 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, 11.04.2006 - 61292/00

  USEINOV v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court has previously held that, in general, persons in that situation have no entitlement to expect that a right of residence will be conferred upon them (see Chandra and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003).
• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 12510/18

  DABO v. SWEDEN

  (iii) There were no insurmountable obstacles in the way of the family living in the country of origin of the person requesting family reunification (see, for example, Gül v. Switzerland, no. 23218/94, 19 February 1996; Ahmut v. Netherlands, no. 21702/93, 28 November 1996; Chandra and Others v. Netherlands, no. 53102/99, 13 May 2003; Berisha v. Switzerland, no. 948/12, 30 July 2013; Nacic and Others v. Sweden, cited above; and I.A.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 25960/13, 8 March 2016).
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 67279/01

  MITINA c. LETTONIE

  A cet égard, elle tient à rappeler qu'en principe, dans une hypothèse où un étranger demeure dans un État contractant en bafouant ses règles d'immigration et confronte les autorités à sa présence comme à un fait accompli, l'article 8 de la Convention ne crée dans le chef de cet État aucune obligation positive de régulariser son séjour (voir Rodrigues da Silva et Hoogkamer c. Pays-Bas, no 50435/99, § 43, CEDH 2006-..., et Chandra et autres c. Pays-Bas (déc.), no 53102/99, 13 mai 2003).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 1722/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 13594/03

  PRIYA v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 43786/04

  BENAMAR v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 57442/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.04.2009 - 38165/07

  NARENJI HAGHIGHI v. THE NETHERLANDS