Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARKINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-2-b) Matter already examined by the Court;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Harkins v. the United Kingdom

  [11.01.2017]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07
• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012}}.

  In particular, he contended that the judgments in Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and - more recently - Murray v. the Netherlands [GC] (no. 10511/10, ECHR 2016) taken together had established new and more exacting criteria that had to be met before extradition to face a whole life sentence would be consistent with Article 3.

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  On 8 September 2014 the High Court was informed that the Court had given judgment in Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), finding that an applicant's extradition to the United States had been in breach of Article 3 of the Convention as it exposed him to a risk of a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

  In particular, he contended that the judgments in Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and - more recently - Murray v. the Netherlands [GC] (no. 10511/10, ECHR 2016) taken together had established new and more exacting criteria that had to be met before extradition to face a whole life sentence would be consistent with Article 3.

• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  These have included: conviction in absentia with no subsequent possibility of a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (see Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005; and Sejdovic, cited above § 84); a trial which is summary in nature and conducted with a total disregard for the rights of the defence (see Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, no. 13284/04, § 47, ECHR 2005-XI); detention without any access to an independent and impartial tribunal to have the legality of the detention reviewed (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), 35865/03, § 101, 20 February 2007); a deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country (ibid.); and the use in criminal proceedings of statements obtained as a result of torture of the accused or a third person in breach of Article 3 (see Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 267, ECHR 2012 (extracts) and El Haski v. Belgium, 649/08, § 85, 25 September 2012).

 
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  However, the Court has adopted a more rigorous approach in applying those admissibility criteria whose object and purpose is to serve the interests of legal certainty and mark out the limits of its competence (see, for example, Sabri Günes v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 39-42, 29 June 2012 and Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I, both of which concerned the application of the six-month time-limit).
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  These have included: conviction in absentia with no subsequent possibility of a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (see Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005; and Sejdovic, cited above § 84); a trial which is summary in nature and conducted with a total disregard for the rights of the defence (see Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, no. 13284/04, § 47, ECHR 2005-XI); detention without any access to an independent and impartial tribunal to have the legality of the detention reviewed (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), 35865/03, § 101, 20 February 2007); a deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country (ibid.); and the use in criminal proceedings of statements obtained as a result of torture of the accused or a third person in breach of Article 3 (see Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 267, ECHR 2012 (extracts) and El Haski v. Belgium, 649/08, § 85, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  Consequently, it has not excluded that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 113, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  These have included: conviction in absentia with no subsequent possibility of a fresh determination of the merits of the charge (see Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI; Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 56, 24 March 2005; and Sejdovic, cited above § 84); a trial which is summary in nature and conducted with a total disregard for the rights of the defence (see Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, no. 13284/04, § 47, ECHR 2005-XI); detention without any access to an independent and impartial tribunal to have the legality of the detention reviewed (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), 35865/03, § 101, 20 February 2007); a deliberate and systematic refusal of access to a lawyer, especially for an individual detained in a foreign country (ibid.); and the use in criminal proceedings of statements obtained as a result of torture of the accused or a third person in breach of Article 3 (see Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 267, ECHR 2012 (extracts) and El Haski v. Belgium, 649/08, § 85, 25 September 2012).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  Insofar as the applicant relies on the recent domestic proceedings, the Court recalls that in respect of new complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, it has accepted that a fresh examination of the case by the domestic authorities, whether by reopening the proceedings or by initiating an entirely new set of domestic proceedings, may in certain circumstances constitute "relevant new information" capable of giving rise to a new violation (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 65, ECHR 2009; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 34, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  EGMEZ v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  Insofar as the applicant relies on the recent domestic proceedings, the Court recalls that in respect of new complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, it has accepted that a fresh examination of the case by the domestic authorities, whether by reopening the proceedings or by initiating an entirely new set of domestic proceedings, may in certain circumstances constitute "relevant new information" capable of giving rise to a new violation (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 65, ECHR 2009; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 34, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  Insofar as the applicant relies on the recent domestic proceedings, the Court recalls that in respect of new complaints concerning the failure by States to execute its judgments, it has accepted that a fresh examination of the case by the domestic authorities, whether by reopening the proceedings or by initiating an entirely new set of domestic proceedings, may in certain circumstances constitute "relevant new information" capable of giving rise to a new violation (see Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 65, ECHR 2009; Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, §§ 48-56, 18 September 2012; and Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 34, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 18030/11

  MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTSÁG v. HUNGARY

• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 26374/18

  GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND

  In that context, the term refers to a trial "which is manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein" (see Ahorugeze v. Sweden, no. 37075/09, § 114, 27 October 2011; Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 259, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Al Nashiri v Poland, no. 28761/11, § 562, 24 July 2014; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 552, 24 July 2014; and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 62, 15 June 2017).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  The purpose of the rule enunciated in Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention is: (i) to ensure the finality of the Court's decisions and to prevent applicants from seeking, through the lodging of a fresh application, to appeal against previous judgments or decisions of the Court (see the Kafkaris decision, cited above, and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), and (ii) to avoid the situation where several international bodies would be simultaneously dealing with applications which are substantially the same, that is, a situation which would be incompatible with the spirit and the letter of the Convention, which seeks to avoid a plurality of international proceedings relating to the same cases (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011).

  In the same vein one could reproach the Grand Chamber for relying in the instant judgment on, say, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (no. 14902/04, § 520, 20 September 2011), or on Blokhin v. Russia ([GC], no. 47152/06, § 91, ECHR 2016), or on Harkins v. the United Kingdom ((dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 41, ECHR 2017), or on any of the numerous very recent judgments and decisions cited extensively in paragraph 115 and elsewhere in the judgment.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.06.2018 - C-216/18

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev ist die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen …

  53 EGMR, 7. Juli 1989, Soering gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:1989:0707JUD001403888, § 113), EGMR, 2. März 2010, Al-Saadoon und Mufdhi gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2010:0302JUD006149808, § 149), EGMR, 17. Januar 2012, 0thman (Abu Qatada) gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD000813909, § 258), EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Al Nashiri gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002876111, § 456 und 562 bis 564), und Urteil des EGMR vom 15. Juni 2017, Harkins gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2017:0615DEC007153714, § 62).

 
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court reiterates that legal certainty constitutes one of the fundamental elements of the rule of law which requires, inter alia, that where a court has finally determined an issue, its ruling should not be called into question (see Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 54, ECHR 2017).

  [6] See § 125 of the revision judgment and the reference to Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC] n° 71537/14, § 56, ECHR 2017.

• EGMR, 11.01.2022 - 70078/12

  EKIMDZHIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court must deal with the point on its own initiative, since it marks out the limits of its competence (see Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 55, 15 June 2017).
• EGMR, 31.10.2017 - 58410/17

  GLANZER v. GERMANY

  Der Gerichtshof ist der Auffassung, dass diese Rüge im Wesentlichen mit einer schon vorher vom Gerichtshof geprüften Beschwerde übereinstimmt (vgl. Harkins./. das Vereinigte Königreich (Entsch.) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 71537/14, Rdnrn. 41 bis 42, 15. Juni 2017) und daher nach Artikel 35 Abs. 2 Buchst. b und Abs. 4 der Konvention für unzulässig zu erklären ist.
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 39014/12

  KORMEV c. BULGARIE

  En vertu de sa jurisprudence, lorsque la Cour doit apprécier si deux requêtes dont elle est saisie sont « essentiellement les mêmes ", elle vérifie si les deux requêtes ont trait essentiellement à la même personne, aux mêmes faits et aux mêmes griefs (Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) c. Suisse (no 2) [GC], no 32772/02, § 63, CEDH 2009 ; Harkins c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], no 71537/14, § 42, 15 juin 2017).
• EGMR, 06.06.2023 - 8243/15

  PARTI POLITIQUE 'PATRIA' c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Il lui incombe d'examiner proprio motu cette question, car le critère de recevabilité énoncé dans la première branche de l'article 35 § 2 b) de la Convention fixe les limites de sa compétence (Harkins c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], no 71537/14, §§ 52 et 55, 15 juin 2017, et Ekimdzhiev et autres c. Bulgarie, no 70078/12, § 253, 11 janvier 2022).
• EGMR, 17.05.2018 - 1167/15

  ZABELOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

  In order for the Court to consider an application which relates to the same facts as a previous application, the applicant must genuinely advance a new complaint or submit new information which has not previously been considered by the Court, within the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Lowe and Kafkaris, § 68, both cited above; and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, §§ 50-56, ECHR 2017).
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 20401/15

  LE COMITÉ D'ORGANISATION ET D'ENREGISTREMENT DU PARTI COMMUNISTE ROUMAIN c. …

  S'agissant de la question de savoir si la présente requête est la même que la requête Ignatencu et le Parti communiste roumain c. Roumanie (no 78635/13, 5 mai 2020), comme le Gouvernement le soutient, la Cour renvoie à la jurisprudence pertinente (Harkins c. Royaume-Uni (déc.) [GC], no 71537/14, §§ 42-43, 15 juin 2017 ; Amarandei et autres c. Roumanie (no 1443/10, § 106, 26 avril 2016) et constate qu'il s'agit de deux procédures distinctes devant les juridictions internes, initiées par des parties distinctes et que les éventuels points communs au niveau des griefs des parties ne sont pas en mesure de justifier le non-examen, par la Cour, de la présente requête (voir, mutatis mutandis, Amarandei et autres précité, §§ 106-112).
• EGMR, 14.05.2019 - 7690/18

  McGILL AND HEWITT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM