Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=53124/09
Timestamp: 2019-06-20 12:32:33+00:00

Document:
https://dejure.org/2011,33813
EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 53124/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,33813)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.10.2011 - 53124/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,33813)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Januar 2011 - 53124/09 (https://dejure.org/2011,33813)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,33813) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
Violation of Art. 14+8 (englisch)
EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 65941/11
Im Übrigen - wenngleich in Art. 8 der Konvention nicht das Recht zugesichert wird, eine besondere Staatsangehörigkeit zu erwerben - sollte nicht außer acht gelassen werden, dass die Staatsangehörigkeit ein Bestandteil der Identität von Personen ist (Genovese./. Malte, Nr. 53124/09, Abs. 33, 11. Oktober 2011).
EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12
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).
It has also established that Article 8 embraces multiple aspects of the person's physical and social identity, like the recognition of an individual's legal civil status (registration of a marriage in Dadouch v. Malta, no. 38816/07, § 48, ECHR 2010 (extracts), and refusal of nationality in Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, §§ 30 and 33, 11 October 2011).
EGMR, Urteil vom 11. Oktober 2011 - 53124/09 -, (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-106785"]}).
It applies also to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Convention Article, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 71, Series A no. 94; and E.B. v. France [GC], no. 43546/02, §§ 47-48, 22 January 2008; Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, § 72, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 32, 11 October 2011).
He further referred to the case of Genovese v. Malta (no. 53124/09, § 45, 11 October 2011), where the Court had found a violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 concerning access to citizenship.
The Court notes that the applicant did not institute constitutional redress proceedings, an acceptable remedy under Maltese domestic law for Convention complaints generally (see, for example, Zarb v. Malta, no. 16631/04, 4 July 2006 in relation to Article 6; and, by implication, Camilleri v. Malta, no. 42931/10, 22 January 2013 in relation to Article 7; Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 24202/10, 22 November 2011 in relation to Article 8; Aquilina and Others v. Malta, no. 28040/08, 14 June 2011 in relation to Article 10; and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, 11 October 2011 in relation to Article 14).
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).
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, and Genovese v. Malta, no. 53124/09, § 30, 11 October 2011).
Der Hinweis auf das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) vom 11. Oktober 2011, Az. 53124/09 ("H. gegen Malta"), verhilft der Klage schon deswegen nicht zum Erfolg, weil der Kläger vorliegend - anders als in dem durch den EGMR entschiedenen Fall - die Möglichkeit hatte, die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit ohne weiteres durch Erklärung zu erwerben, und der Erklärungserwerb lediglich an einem Fristversäumnis scheitert.
EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 42387/13
K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 55607/09
H.P. v. DENMARK

References: Art. 8
 Art. 8
 Art. 14
 Art. 14
 Art. 34
 Art. 35
 Art. 35
 Art. 14
 Art. 8
 § 77
 § 30
 § 48
 § 71
 § 72
 § 32
 § 45
 § 77
 § 30
 § 30
 EGMR