Case Law

27 January 2011 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements - Freedom of expression | Countries: Germany - Turkey

25 March 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Jordan

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

16 October 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Germany - Peru

11 July 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Countries: Germany - Sierra Leone

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

27 October 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion | 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

22 September 2005 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: Germany - Turkey