Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion Positive obligations) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 5 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kasymakhunov v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  ISKANDAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof, are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see, with further references, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, § 107, 23 September 2010; and El Masri, cited above, § 151).

  The Court notes at the outset that it must consider the present case in its context, having regard in particular to the recurrent disappearances of individuals subject to extradition from Russia to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, and their subsequent resurfacing in police custody in their home country (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov, cited above; and Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above; see also paragraphs 94 and 95 above).

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right to individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right to individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).

 
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  During that time the extradition proceedings, although temporarily suspended pursuant to the request made by the Court, were nevertheless in progress for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (f) (see, for similar reasoning, Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 73 and 74, ECHR 2007-II; Al Hanchi, cited above, § 51; and Al Husin, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or to use as the basis of their decisions (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 103; Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004 IV (extracts); and El Masri, cited above, § 183).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 48205/09

  AL HANCHI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  In accordance with the Court's well-established case law, this period of the applicant's detention should be distinguished from the earlier period (see Chahal, cited above, § 114; Al Hanchi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 48205/09, §§ 49-51, 15 November 2011; and Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 3727/08, §§ 67-69, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 12572/08

  S.P. c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  The Court has previously found that where expulsion or extradition proceedings are provisionally suspended as a result of the application of an interim measure, that does not in itself render the detention of the person concerned unlawful, provided that the authorities still envisage expulsion at a later stage, and on condition that the detention is not unreasonably prolonged (see Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 22426/10, § 34, 17 January 2012, and S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Such an obligation will arise in situations where applicants are particularly vulnerable (see Naydyon v. Ukraine, no. 16474/03, § 63, 14 October 2010; Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 156, 26 July 2012; and Iulian Popescu v. Romania, no. 24999/04, § 33, 4 June 2013).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 22426/10

  KESHMIRI v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  The Court has previously found that where expulsion or extradition proceedings are provisionally suspended as a result of the application of an interim measure, that does not in itself render the detention of the person concerned unlawful, provided that the authorities still envisage expulsion at a later stage, and on condition that the detention is not unreasonably prolonged (see Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 22426/10, § 34, 17 January 2012, and S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  If the Court found that the statements made by the applicant were covered by Article 17, then Article 10 would have to be declared inapplicable and the complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, without there being any need to examine whether the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate to that aim (see, for example, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI; Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012, §§ 74-75 and 78; Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 113-114, 14 November 2013; M"Bala M"Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 42, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 37, 27 June 2017; and Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 48-49, 17 April 2018).
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  A.R. v. RUSSIA

  Second, as regards the applicant's argument concerning an "extradition in disguise", indeed, in previous cases the Court dealt with situations where extradition requests were made by another State and rejected by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office but the applicants were still removed from Russia by way of another legal procedure (see, for instance, Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 15-17 and 102-03, 11 December 2008) or even in defiance of the legal procedures under Russian law and the indication made by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013, and Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, 23 October 2014).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA

  In the recent cases against the Russian Federation examined under Article 3 concerning the extradition of applicants to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, the Court has identified the critical elements to be subjected to searching scrutiny (see, among many other authorities, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, cited above; and Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA

  In the recent cases against the Russian Federation examined under Article 3 concerning the extradition of applicants to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, the Court identified the critical elements to be subjected to a searching scrutiny (see, among many other authorities, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts), Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012, and Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010).