Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights
The Court is currently made up of 47 judges, one in principle for every State signed up to the Convention. They are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and serve for six years. Judges sit on the Court as individuals and do not represent their country. Website: www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
- Case Law 5
|
CASE OF T.C.E. v. GERMANY (Application no. 58681/12)
in a case which concerns family life as well as immigration, the extent of a State’s obligations will vary according to the particular circumstances of the persons involved and the general interest. 1 March 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Rejected asylum-seekers - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Nigeria |
|
Omwenyeke v. Germany
Admisibility decision. 20 November 2007 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Asylum-seekers - Freedom of movement - Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Nigeria |
|
Kaya v. Germany
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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life | Countries: Germany - Türkiye |
|
Niedzwiecki v. Germany
15 February 2006 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Prevention of discrimination - Residence permits / Residency - Right to family life - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Germany - Poland |
|
Okpisz v. Germany
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 | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland |
