Last Updated: Friday, 28 April 2017, 08:07 GMT

Case Law

Case Law includes national and international jurisprudential decisions. Administrative bodies and tribunals are included.
Selected filters: Germany
Filter:
Showing 81-90 of 244 results
Bundesverfassungsgericht, Urteil vom 24 Mai 2006 - 2 BvR 669/04

AbsatzNr. (1 109), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20060524_2bvr066904.html

24 May 2006 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht | Countries: Germany - Nigeria

Beschluss vom 17. Mai 2006 BVerwG 1 B 100.05

The case summary in English has been prepared in the framework of the Knowledge-Based Harmonisation of European Asylum Practices Project (2010-2012), co-financed by the European Refugee Fund.

17 May 2006 | Judicial Body: Germany: Bundesverwaltungsgericht | Countries: Germany - Russian Federation

Keles 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.

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

Niedzwiecki v. Germany

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

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 | Topic(s): Residence permits / Residency | Countries: Germany - Poland

Kaldik v. Germany

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

Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Würzburg, Urteil der 8. Kammer vom 19. September 2005

19 September 2005 | Judicial Body: Germany: Verwaltungsgericht | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution - Non-state agents of persecution - Prostitution / Commercial sex work - SGBV - Social group persecution - Trafficking in persons | Countries: Germany - Ukraine

Dragan et autres c. l'Allemagne

7 October 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Deportation / Forcible return - Expulsion - Public health - Right to family life - Rights of non-citizens - Statelessness - Withdrawal of nationality | Countries: Germany - Romania

Ghiban c. Allemagne

16 September 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Expulsion - Naturalization - Statelessness - Visas | Countries: Germany - Romania

Freimann v. Croatia

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. The applicant is a national of Croatia and Germany whose house in Slavonski Brod was blown up by unknown perpetrators. On 4 October 1995 she instituted civil proceedings seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia. Pursuant to the 1996 amendments to the Civil Obligations Act, the case was stayed by the Municipal Court. Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003, the proceedings resumed on 4 December 2003. Before the Court, the applicant claimed, that the enactment of the 1996 Act violated her right of access to court guaranteed by Article 6 §1 of the Convention. The Court found in accordance with the Kutiæ jurisprudence that the long period (more than seven years) for which the applicant was prevented from having her civil claim decided by domestic courts as a consequence of a legislative measure constituted a violation of Article 6 §1 of the Convention. This judgement is not final. Note that two friendly settlements were reached in two similar cases against Croatia on 24 June 2004 (Jorgiæ v Croatia, Appl. No. 70446/01 and Kresoviæ v. Croatia, Appl. No. 75545/01).

24 June 2004 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Countries: Croatia - Germany

Search Refworld