Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOTI v. CROATIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HOTI v. CROATIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Protokoll Nr. 12 Art. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14
• EGMR, 27.03.2019 - 63311/14

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 19.10.2005 - 32555/96

  ROCHE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  The positive obligation under Article 8 may be read as imposing on States an obligation to provide an effective and accessible means of protecting the right to respect for private and/or family life (see Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, § 162, ECHR 2005-X, and Abuhmaid, cited above, § 118, with further references; see also Kuric and Others, cited above, § 358).
• EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09

  H.P. v. DENMARK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  In order to ascertain whether that provision applies to the present case, the Court must answer two questions in turn: firstly, whether the circumstances complained of directly by the applicant still obtain and, secondly, whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have also been redressed (see Sisojeva and Others v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 60654/00, § 97, ECHR 2007-I, and H.P. v. Denmark (dec.), no. 55607/09, § 66, 13 December 2016).
• EGMR, 19.03.2013 - 45971/08

  SAVASCI v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  Moreover, in the Court's view, the applicant's case should be distinguished from cases concerning "settled migrants" as this notion has been used in the Court's case-law, namely, persons who had already been formally granted a right of residence in a host country and where a subsequent withdrawal of that right, with a possibility of expulsion, was found to constitute an interference with his or her right to respect for private and/or family life within the meaning of Article 8, which needed to be justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 (see, for instance, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008, and Savasci v. Germany (dec.), no. 45971/08, 19 March 2013; see also Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 104, 3 October 2014).

 
• EGMR, 07.12.2007 - 59643/00

  KAFTAÏLOVA c. LETTONIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  In such cases, the Court has accepted that the cases of applicants who, following the break-up of a predecessor State, were given unequivocal assurances by the relevant authorities that they would be granted permanent residence, which then required them to diligently comply with further arrangements related to the granting of that status, should be struck out from the Court's list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention (see Shevanova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 58822/00, § 46, 7 December 2007; Kaftailova v. Latvia (striking out) [GC], no. 59643/00, § 49, 7 December 2007; and Sisojeva and Others, cited above, §§ 98-99; see also, concerning victim status, Kuric and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06, § 266, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and further compare Khan v. Germany [GC], no. 38030/12, § 33, 21 September 2016, concerning the regularisation of the status of failed asylum seekers in connection with a risk of expulsion).
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 27310/09

  UDOVICIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  The Court has also already held that parties can submit arguments and counter-arguments related to their cases before it and the Court can accept or reject them, but such contentious submissions cannot in themselves be regarded as an abuse of the right of individual application (see Udovicic v. Croatia, no. 27310/09, § 125, 24 April 2014, and Harakchiev and Tolumov v. Bulgaria, nos.
• EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

  Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  Moreover, in the Court's view, the applicant's case should be distinguished from cases concerning "settled migrants" as this notion has been used in the Court's case-law, namely, persons who had already been formally granted a right of residence in a host country and where a subsequent withdrawal of that right, with a possibility of expulsion, was found to constitute an interference with his or her right to respect for private and/or family life within the meaning of Article 8, which needed to be justified under the second paragraph of Article 8 (see, for instance, Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, ECHR 2006-XII; Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008, and Savasci v. Germany (dec.), no. 45971/08, 19 March 2013; see also Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 104, 3 October 2014).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  The Court notes that, although the parties have not raised the issue of its jurisdiction ratione temporis, in order to satisfy itself that it has temporal jurisdiction to examine all the circumstances of the applicant's case (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III), the Court must take into account that the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997 and that a number of events related to the applicant's residence status in Croatia occurred before that date.
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 51431/99

  ARISTIMUNO MENDIZABAL c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  Moreover, neither Article 8 nor any other provision of the Convention can be construed as guaranteeing, as such, the right to the granting of a particular type of residence permit, provided that a solution offered by the authorities allows the individual concerned to exercise without obstacles his or her right to respect for private and/or family life (see Aristimuño Mendizabal v. France, no. 51431/99, § 66, 17 January 2006, and B.A.C v. Greece., cited above, § 35).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2018 - 63311/14

  In particular, if a residence permit allows the holder to reside within the territory of the host country and to exercise freely there the right to respect for his or her private and family life, the granting of such a permit represents in principle a sufficient measure to meet the requirements of Article 8. In such cases, the Court is not empowered to rule on whether the individual concerned should be granted one particular legal status rather than another, that choice being a matter for the domestic authorities alone (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 91, ECHR 2016 (extracts), and cases cited therein).