Case Law

20 June 2016 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Topic(s): Family reunification - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Nigeria

24 June 2015 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): Expulsion - Kurd - National security / Public order - Refugees - Residence permits / Residency - Terrorism | Countries: Germany - Turkey

11 September 2014 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Topic(s): National security / Public order - Non-refoulement - Refoulement - Regional instruments - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Turkey

10 July 2012 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Topic(s): Children's rights - Complementary forms of protection - EU Qualification Directive - Residence permits / Residency - Rights of non-citizens | Countries: Germany

21 September 2010 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Older persons - Residence permits / Residency - SGBV - Safe third country - Social group persecution - Women-at-risk | Countries: Afghanistan

Admisibility decision.

20 November 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Freedom of movement - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Nigeria

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

28 June 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Turkey

Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Okpisz v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 59140/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.

25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

Final judgment: 15 February 2006. Similar to: Niedzwiecki v. Germany, Final judgment of 25 October 2005, Appl. No. 58453/00 Facts: The applicants in both cases are immigrants, in possession of residence permits for exceptional purposes. Their requests for child benefits were rejected as they were not in possession of unlimited residence permits or provisional residence permits, as required by law. In the Niedzwiecki case all appeals in the domestic proceedings were rejected. In the Okpisz case the applicant?s appeal was suspended after the Social Court of Appeal had referred some pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court. In a judgment of 6 July 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the different treatment of parents who were and who were not in possession of a stable residential permit lacked sufficient justification. After that decision, the applicant?s appeal was again suspended pending the amendment of the applicable legislation. Complaint before the Court: The applicants complained that the German authority?s refusal of child benefits amounted to discrimination in violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR. Legal Argumentation: The Court held that granting child benefits come within the scope of respect for family life as guaranteed in Article 8 ECHR and therefore Article 14 ? taken together with Article 8 ECHR ? is applicable. The Court found no ?objective and reasonable justification? for the applicants to be treated differently (para. 32 of Niedzwiecki v. Germany and para. 33 of Okpisz v. Germany) Therefore the Court found a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 8 ECHR.

25 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland