Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHIKSAITOV v. SLOVAKIA and 1 other application

  Art. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  Such an enforceable right must be available either before or after the Court's judgment (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 183-184, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 2237/08

  R.U. c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  The Court has accordingly found violations of that provision in cases where the applicant was detained despite the existence of established circumstances that prevented extradition or expulsion under domestic law - for example, where national law did not allow for deportation pending a decision on asylum (see R.U. v. Greece, no. 2237/08, §§ 88-96, 7 June 2011, and Ahmade v. Greece, no. 50520/09, §§ 142-144, 25 September 2012), or where extradition was excluded from the outset owing to the applicant's nationality (see Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, and Garkavyy v. Ukraine, no. 25978/07, §§ 70 and 75, 18 February 2010) or owing to the applicant's refugee status (Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, §§ 7, 17 and 48, 26 February 2009), or where detention for the purpose of extradition was rendered arbitrary from the moment that the decision to grant the applicant refugee status became final and binding (Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, §§ 61 and 62, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 50520/09

  AHMADE c. GRÈCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  The Court has accordingly found violations of that provision in cases where the applicant was detained despite the existence of established circumstances that prevented extradition or expulsion under domestic law - for example, where national law did not allow for deportation pending a decision on asylum (see R.U. v. Greece, no. 2237/08, §§ 88-96, 7 June 2011, and Ahmade v. Greece, no. 50520/09, §§ 142-144, 25 September 2012), or where extradition was excluded from the outset owing to the applicant's nationality (see Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, and Garkavyy v. Ukraine, no. 25978/07, §§ 70 and 75, 18 February 2010) or owing to the applicant's refugee status (Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, §§ 7, 17 and 48, 26 February 2009), or where detention for the purpose of extradition was rendered arbitrary from the moment that the decision to grant the applicant refugee status became final and binding (Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, §§ 61 and 62, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  The Court has accordingly found violations of that provision in cases where the applicant was detained despite the existence of established circumstances that prevented extradition or expulsion under domestic law - for example, where national law did not allow for deportation pending a decision on asylum (see R.U. v. Greece, no. 2237/08, §§ 88-96, 7 June 2011, and Ahmade v. Greece, no. 50520/09, §§ 142-144, 25 September 2012), or where extradition was excluded from the outset owing to the applicant's nationality (see Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, and Garkavyy v. Ukraine, no. 25978/07, §§ 70 and 75, 18 February 2010) or owing to the applicant's refugee status (Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, §§ 7, 17 and 48, 26 February 2009), or where detention for the purpose of extradition was rendered arbitrary from the moment that the decision to grant the applicant refugee status became final and binding (Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, §§ 61 and 62, 15 October 2009).
• EGMR, 15.10.2009 - 33210/07

  DUBOVIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.12.2020 - 56751/16

  The Court has accordingly found violations of that provision in cases where the applicant was detained despite the existence of established circumstances that prevented extradition or expulsion under domestic law - for example, where national law did not allow for deportation pending a decision on asylum (see R.U. v. Greece, no. 2237/08, §§ 88-96, 7 June 2011, and Ahmade v. Greece, no. 50520/09, §§ 142-144, 25 September 2012), or where extradition was excluded from the outset owing to the applicant's nationality (see Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, and Garkavyy v. Ukraine, no. 25978/07, §§ 70 and 75, 18 February 2010) or owing to the applicant's refugee status (Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, §§ 7, 17 and 48, 26 February 2009), or where detention for the purpose of extradition was rendered arbitrary from the moment that the decision to grant the applicant refugee status became final and binding (Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, §§ 61 and 62, 15 October 2009).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA

  The general principles concerning detention pending deportation or extradition under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention are set out in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy ([GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 88-92, 15 December 2016) and Shiksaitov v. Slovakia (nos. 56751/16 and 33762/17, §§ 53-56, 10 December 2020).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  The general principles concerning detention pending deportation or extradition under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention are set out in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy ([GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 88-92, 15 December 2016) and Shiksaitov v. Slovakia (nos. 56751/16 and 33762/17, §§ 53-56, 10 December 2020).
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 40324/16

  BIVOLARU ET MOLDOVAN c. FRANCE

  Or, elle constate que les autorités judiciaires d'exécution ont procédé à une telle vérification en recherchant, si au-delà de son statut de réfugié, la situation personnelle du requérant ne s'opposait pas, dans les circonstances de l'espèce prévalant à la date de leur décision, à sa remise aux autorités roumaines (mutatis mutandis, Shiksaitov c. Slovaquie, nos 56751/16 et 33762/17, §§ 70 et 71, 10 décembre 2020).

 
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 19.10.2023 - C-352/22

  Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Hamm (Demande d'extradition d'un réfugié vers la …

  46 So hat er etwa in seinem Urteil vom 10. Dezember 2020, Shiksaitov/Slowakei (CE:ECHR:2020:1210JUD005675116, §§ 68 bis 75), das Vorbringen des Beschwerdeführers, seine Inhaftierung sei rechtswidrig, weil er aufgrund seines in Schweden erlangten Flüchtlingsstatus von den slowakischen Behörden nicht hätte ausgeliefert werden dürfen, dahin gehend beschieden, dass diese Behörden nicht an die Gewährung dieses Status gebunden seien, den sie insbesondere im Hinblick auf die mögliche Anwendbarkeit einer Ausschlussklausel erneut prüfen könnten.
• EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 5560/19

  K.I. c. FRANCE

  Ainsi qu'il ressort de la jurisprudence de la Cour, le fait que l'intéressé a la qualité de réfugié est un élément qui doit être particulièrement pris en compte par les autorités internes lorsqu'elles examinent la réalité du risque que celui-ci allègue subir en cas d'expulsion (voir mutatis mutandis, Shiksaitov c. Slovaquie, nos 56751/16 et 33762/17, §§ 70-71, 10 décembre 2020 et, Bivolaru et Moldovan c. France, nos 40324/16 et 12623/17, § 141, 25 mars 2021, non définitif).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 28/17

  DE SOUSA c. PORTUGAL

  Si la procédure n'est pas menée avec la diligence requise, la détention cesse toutefois d'être justifiée au regard de l'article 5 § 1 f) (voir la jurisprudence citée au paragraphe 71 ci-dessus ; voir également, mutatis mutandis, Chahal, précité, §§ 112-113 ; Kaya c. Roumanie, no 33970/05, § 17, 12 octobre 2006 ; et Shiksaitov c. Slovaquie, nos 56751/16 et 33762/17, § 56, 10 décembre 2020 avec les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 40132/16

  SALMANOV v. SLOVAKIA

  At the same time, there is no evidence of any statutory or case-law basis at the national level for claiming Article 5 § 5 compensation following findings of a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 to 4 of the Convention by the Court (see, recently, Shiksaitov v. Slovakia, nos. 56751/16 and 33762/17, § 93, 10 December 2020, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 20611/17

  KOMISSAROV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The Court's consideration 45. The general principles concerning detention pending deportation or extradition under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention are set out in Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC] (no. 16483/12, §§ 88-92, 15 December 2016) and Shiksaitov v. Slovakia (nos. 56751/16 and 33762/17, §§ 53-56, 10 December 2020).
• EGMR - 49068/20 (anhängig)

  BAYRAMALIYEV v. TÜRKIYE

  56751/16 and 33762/17, §§ 53-56, 10 December 2020; and Komissarov v. the Czech Republic, no. 20611/17, §§ 45-53, 3 February 2022)?.