Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,71314
EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,71314)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.07.2006 - 8407/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,71314)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Juli 2006 - 8407/05 (https://dejure.org/2006,71314)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,71314) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

    WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    The Court's case-law establishes that discrimination means treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 29865/96

    Diskriminierung türkischer Ehefrauen durch Verpflichtung zur Tragung des Namens

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    However, not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation of Article 14. It must be established that other persons in an analogous or relevantly similar situation enjoy preferential treatment and that this distinction is discriminatory (Unal Tekeli v. Turkey, no. 29865/96, § 49, 16 November 2004).
  • EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 60723/00

    KUDUZOVIC v. SLOVENIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    The Court recalls that the right to citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, although it cannot be excluded that an arbitrary denial of a citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see, inter alia, Karassev v. Finland (Dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II, and Kuduzovic v. Slovenia (Dec.), no. 60723/00, 17 March 2005).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    As regards the alleged impossibility, for the second applicant's family members, to visit the applicants in Italy, the Court recalls that as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State has the right to control the entry of non-nationals into its territory (see, among other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, pp. 33-34, § 67).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

    LITHGOW AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    A difference of treatment in the exercise of a right laid down by the Convention must not only pursue a legitimate aim: Article 14 is likewise violated when it is clearly established that there is no "reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised" (see, for example, Petrovic v. Austria, judgment of 27 March 1998, Reports 1998-II, p. 586, § 30, and Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, pp. 66-67, § 177).
  • EGMR, 28.10.1987 - 8695/79

    Inze ./. Österreich

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and its background (Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 15, § 40, and Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 41), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court.
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
  • EGMR, 28.11.1984 - 8777/79

    RASMUSSEN v. DENMARK

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    The scope of the margin of appreciation will vary according to the circumstances, the subject-matter and its background (Rasmussen v. Denmark, judgment of 28 November 1984, Series A no. 87, p. 15, § 40, and Inze v. Austria, judgment of 28 October 1987, Series A no. 126, p. 18, § 41), but the final decision as to observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court.
  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 8407/05
    The rejection of a complaint as "manifestly ill-founded" amounts to a decision that "there is not even a prima facie case against the respondent State" (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, p. 10, § 18).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

    RAMADAN v. MALTA

    The Court has previously stated that although the right to citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might in certain circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of the impact of such a denial on the private life of the individual (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy (dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011).
  • OVG Bremen, 17.01.2019 - 1 B 333/18

    Aufenthaltserlaubnis nach § 25 Abs. 5 i.V.m. Art. 8 EMRK; Duldung wegen

    Angesichts der vorstehend genannten Umstände, insbesondere der Möglichkeit einer Eheschließung in der Türkei, ist auch der mit einer Abschiebung vor dem Eheschließungstermin verbundene Eingriff in Art. 12 EMRK gerechtfertigt (vgl. Savoia und Bounegru ./. It, Beschl. v. 11.7.2006 - 8407/05 -, Rn. 1 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-76690"]}).
  • EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42387/13

    K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    The Court has accepted that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of its impact on the private life of the individual (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy (dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011).
  • EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 74411/16

    SAID ABDUL SALAM MUBARAK v. DENMARK

    The Court has accepted that an arbitrary denial of citizenship might, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention because of its impact on the private life of the individual (see Karassev v. Finland (dec.), no. 31414/96, ECHR 1999-II; Slivenko v. Latvia (dec.) [GC], no. 48321/99, § 77, ECHR 2002-II; Savoia and Bounegru v. Italy (dec.), no. 8407/05, 11 July 2006; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht