Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI v. SWITZERLAND

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SELMANI contre la SUISSE

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 70258/01

  However, the removal of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of the right to respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see the Moustaquim v. Belgium judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 18, § 16).
• EGMR, 14.10.2004 - 40750/98

  OSPINA VARGAS c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 70258/01

  Nevertheless, the detention of a person in a prison at a distance from his family which renders any visit very difficult, if not impossible, may in exceptional circumstances constitute an interference with his family life, the possibility for members of the family to visit a prisoner being an essential factor for the maintenance of family life (see Ospina Vargas v. Italy, no. 40750/98, ECHR 2000- ).
• EKMR, 20.10.1994 - 23241/94

  HACISÜLEYMANOGLU contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.06.2001 - 70258/01

  The difficulties which the applicants may encounter are not, therefore, excessive and will not render family life impossible (see application no. 23241/94, decision of 20 October 1994, DR 79-B, p. 121, with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 15914/11

  NASKOVIC v. SERBIA

  In the absence of evidence that "any [family] visit[s]" to the applicant have been rendered "very difficult, if not impossible" (see paragraphs 10 and 12 at (iv) above), it follows that the applicant's complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must, as such, be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention (see Selmani v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 70258/01, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 5380/12

  WEST v. HUNGARY

  The Court further reiterates that the Convention does not grant detained persons the right of choosing their places of detention, and that the separation and distance from their families are inevitable consequences of detention (see Selmani v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 70258/01, 28 June 2001).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 35049/08

  SERCE v. ROMANIA

  They relied on the cases of Selmani v. Switzerland ((dec.), no. 70258/01, 28 June 2001) and Plepi v. Albania and Greece (nos. 11546/05, 33285/05 and 33288/05, 4 May 2010).
• EGMR, 16.05.2017 - 59779/14

  PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA

  Separation of the applicant prisoner from his family and being kept at a distance from them are regarded as inevitable consequences of detention following the exercise by the domestic authorities of their prerogatives in the area of criminal sanctions (see Selmani v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 70258/01, 28 June 2001; Serce, cited above, § 55; and Labaca Larrea, cited above, § 42).
• EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 11546/05

  PLEPI v. ALBANIA AND GREECE

  Lastly, it must be recalled that, as regards the Greek refusal to authorise the applicants' transfer to Albania, the Convention does not grant prisoners the right to choose the place of detention and that separation and distance from their family are an inevitable consequence of their detention following the exercise by the Greek State of its prerogatives in the area of criminal sanctions (see Selmani v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 70258/01, 28 June 2001; Venetucci v. Italy, Commission decision of 2 March 1998; Hacisuleymanogly v. Italy, no. 23241/94, Commission decision of 20 October 1994).