Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ETANJI c. FRANCE

  Art. 8, Art. 3 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  En ce qui concerne les atteintes alléguées par le requérant à sa vie privée, la Cour estime que les contraintes normales et raisonnables découlant de sa vie en clandestinité et de la mesure d'expulsion - prise à son égard mais suspendue suite à sa demande d'abrogation - ne sauraient à elles seules constituer une ingérence au sens de l'article 8 de la Convention (mutatis mutandis Silver et autres c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 25 mars 1983, série A no 61, § 98).
• EGMR, 24.03.1988 - 10465/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  La Cour rappelle qu'« être ensemble représente un élément fondamental de la vie familiale'(Olsson c. Suède (no 1), arrêt du 24 mars 1988, série A no 130, p. 29, § 59, Johansen c. Norvège, arrêt du 7 août 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-III, pp.
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  Aussi, le requérant vit-il auprès de ses proches en France et ne court-il aucun risque d'éloignement proche ou imminent (mutatis mutandis Vijayanathan et Pusparajah c. France, arrêt du 27 août 1992, série A no 241-B, § 46).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 43611/11

  F.G. v. SWEDEN

  However, in cases as mentioned in paragraph 74 above where the risk of expulsion disappears prior to any decision on the admissibility of the application, the Court has sometimes declared the latter inadmissible because the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Atsaev v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 14021/10, 7 July 2015; Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015; Andreyev v. Estonia (dec.), no. 42987/09, 22 January 2013; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; and Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  In reference to the specific category of cases involving the deportation of non-nationals, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a deportation measure if the measure is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 27.11.2018 - 45434/12

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  Furthermore, in a number of cases (involving the deportation or extradition of non-nationals and raising an issue under Article 8 of the Convention) the Court has held that an applicant could not claim to be the "victim" of a measure if it was not enforceable or was no longer in force (see, for instance, Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pančenko v. Latvia (dec.), no. 40772/98, 28 October 1999; Mikheyeva v. Latvia (dec.), no. 50029/99, 12 September 2002; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; and Fjodorova and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 69405/01, 6 April 2006).

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  With particular reference to the specific category of cases involving expulsion measures, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-B, § 46; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  [ENG]

  It notes, firstly, that the order for his expulsion, having been upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court, is final and enforceable (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 358, ECHR 2005-III; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 100, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 90, 29 July 2010; and Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876/08, § 63, 17 June 2010, and contrast Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; Shamayev and Others, cited above, §§ 354-55, ECHR 2005-III; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 60, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 13.10.2005 - 40932/02

  B. Y. gegen Deutschland

  Der Gerichtshof hat erkannt, dass ein Beschwerdeführer sich nicht mehr als Opfer einer Abschiebungsmaßnahme bezeichnen kann, wenn diese Maßnahme keinen Vollzugscharakter mehr aufweist ( Vijaynathan und Pusparajah ./. Frankreich, Urteil vom 27. August 1992, Serie A Bd. 241-B, S. 87, Rdnr. 46, Pellumbi ./. Frankreich (Entsch.), Nr. 65730/01, 18. Januar 2005, Etanji ./. Frankreich (Entsch.), Nr. 60411/00, 1. März 2005, und N. Mohammed u.a. ./. Schweiz , Nr. 33016/96, Entscheidung der Kommission vom 14. April 1998), oder wenn der Ausweisungsverfügung die rechtliche Wirkung entzogen worden ist und die Wiederaufnahme der Abschiebung durch die Verwaltungsbehörden vor den Verwaltungsgerichten angefochten werden kann (… Kalantari ./. Deutschland (Streichung), Nr. 51342/99, CEDH 2001-X, Rdnr. 55-56, Mehemi ./. Frankreich (Nr. 2), Nr. 53470/99, CEDH 2003-X, Rdnr. 54, vorgenannte Rechtssache Benamar ).
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 9568/22

  F.O. ET G.H. c. BELGIQUE

  Or, s'agissant du contentieux des étrangers, la Cour a jugé à de nombreuses reprises qu'un requérant ne pouvait pas se prétendre « victime'au sens de l'article 34 de la Convention s'il n'avait pas fait l'objet d'une mesure d'expulsion et qu'il disposerait d'un recours pour contester une telle mesure prise à son encontre (voir, parmi d'autres, Vijayanathan et Pusparajah c. France, 27 août 1992, § 46, série A no 241-B, Panevskii et autres c. Irlande (déc.), no 2453/03, 13 octobre 2005, et Adio c. Irlande (déc.), no 8596/08, 17 mai 2011) ou lorsqu'une telle mesure était dépourvue de caractère exécutoire (Pellumbi c. France (déc.), no 65730/01, 18 janvier 2005, et Etanji c. France (déc.), no 60411/00, 1er mars 2005).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 12552/12

  KEBE AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In cases where applicants have faced expulsion or extradition the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be a "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  [ENG]

  In cases where applicants have faced expulsion or extradition the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  As to the specific category of cases involving expulsion measures, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 16473/19

  F.T. AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 44448/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.05.2024 - 34925/21

  O.V.B. c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 8143/18

  M.C. AND F.S.B. v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 67279/01

  MITINA c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 55085/16

  U.H. v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  [ENG]