Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z.H. AND R.H. v. SWITZERLAND

  No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z.H. AND R.H. v. SWITZERLAND - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Z. H. AND R. H. v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.05.1994 - 16969/90

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  The Court reiterates that the notion of "family life" in Article 8 is not confined solely to families based on marriage and may encompass other de facto relationships (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-C; X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II; and Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 34, ECHR 2007-XIV).

  The notion of the "family" is not confined solely to marriage-based relationships and may encompass other de facto "family" ties where the parties are living together outside of marriage (see Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; and Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 112, 20 June 2002).".

• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 39350/13

  A.S. v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  It must therefore be declared admissible (see, mutatis mutandis, A.S. v. Switzerland, no. 39350/13, § 40, 30 June 2015).

  The same applies to cases of asylum seekers whose presence on the territory of a Contracting State is tolerated by the national authorities on their own motion or accepted in compliance with their international obligations (see A.S. v. Switzerland, no. 39350/13, § 44, 30 June 2015).

• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  Article 8 applies to the "family life" of the "illegitimate" family as it does to that of the "legitimate" family (see Marckx, cited above, § 31; and Johnston and Others v. Ireland, 18 December 1986, § 55, Series A no. 112).

• EGMR, 13.06.1979 - 6833/74

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  The Court reiterates that the notion of "family life" in Article 8 is not confined solely to families based on marriage and may encompass other de facto relationships (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-C; X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II; and Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 34, ECHR 2007-XIV).
• EGMR, 13.12.2007 - 39051/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  The Court reiterates that the notion of "family life" in Article 8 is not confined solely to families based on marriage and may encompass other de facto relationships (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-C; X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II; and Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 34, ECHR 2007-XIV).
• EGMR, 27.10.1994 - 18535/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  The Court reiterates that the notion of "family life" in Article 8 is not confined solely to families based on marriage and may encompass other de facto relationships (see, among many other authorities, Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, § 31, Series A no. 31; Keegan v. Ireland, 26 May 1994, § 44, Series A no. 290; Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands, 27 October 1994, § 30, Series A no. 297-C; X, Y and Z v. the United Kingdom, 22 April 1997, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II; and Emonet and Others v. Switzerland, no. 39051/03, § 34, ECHR 2007-XIV).
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 42857/05

  Zum Zeugnisverweigerungsrecht - Lebensgefährten dürfen im Strafprozess nicht …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  When deciding whether a relationship can be said to amount to "family life", a number of factors may be relevant, including whether the couple live together, the length of their relationship and whether they have demonstrated their commitment to each other by having children together or by any other means (see Van der Heijden v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 42857/05, § 50, 3 April 2012).
• EGMR, 10.02.2005 - 27806/02

  STAMATIOS KARAGIANNIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  The Court also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the remaining part of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see, for example, Chojak v. Poland, no. 32220/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998, unreported; Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30024/96, 26 September 2000; and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, no. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 30024/96

  SINGH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 60119/12

  The Court also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the remaining part of the application by virtue of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in fine (see, for example, Chojak v. Poland, no. 32220/96, Commission decision of 23 April 1998, unreported; Singh and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 30024/96, 26 September 2000; and Stamatios Karagiannis v. Greece, no. 27806/02, § 28, 10 February 2005).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11

  KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE v. CYPRUS and 2 other applications

  In accordance with the Court's case-law, decisions taken by States in the sphere of immigration could, in some cases, amount to interference with the right to respect for private and family life where the persons concerned possessed strong personal or family ties in the host country which were liable to be affected by an expulsion order (referring to Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, no. 60119/12, § 41, 8 December 2015, and Muradeli v. Russia, no. 72780/12, § 70, 9 April 2015).
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 19845/15

  GATCINAS v. LITHUANIA and 2 other applications

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law where it held that although, as a rule, cohabitation might be a requirement for such a relationship, other factors might exceptionally also serve to demonstrate that a relationship had sufficient constancy to create de facto family ties (see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 56, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), including the length of the relationship and whether the couple had demonstrated their commitment to each other (see Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, no. 60119/12, § 42, 8 December 2015).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 62564/13

  CIAPAS v. LITHUANIA

  Although, as a rule, cohabitation may be a requirement for such a relationship, other factors may exceptionally also serve to demonstrate that a relationship has sufficient constancy to create de facto "family ties" (see Nazarenko v. Russia, no. 39438/13, § 56, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), including the length of the relationship and whether the couple have demonstrated their commitment to each other (Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland, no. 60119/12, § 42, 8 December 2015).