Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

IMMIGRATION/HUMAN RIGHTS: Konstatinov v Netherlands

Sep 29, 2018, 17:15 PM
Slug : konstatinov-v-netherlands
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Apr 26, 2007, 04:22 AM
Article ID : 87591

(European Court of Human Rights; 26 April 2007)

The wife had twice been denied a residence permit to stay in the Netherlands with the husband, who held a permanent residence permit but did not comply with the minimum income requirement under the relevant rules in respect of family reunion. The wife was then declared an undesirable alien on account of her criminal record in the Netherlands, entailing a 5-year exclusion order. The wife, threatened with expulsion, argued that the exclusion order breached her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8.

The Netherlands had not failed to strike a fair balance between the wife's interests and the state's own interest in controlling immigration and public expenditure and in the prevention of disorder or crime. There had been no violation of Art 8.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from