Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ASALYA v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Asalya v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  It is, therefore, inconsistent with Article 13 for such measures to be executed before the national authorities have examined their compatibility with the Convention (see M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41416/08, § 129, 26 July 2011; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 153, 11 January 2007; and Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 20.06.2002 - 50963/99

  AL-NASHIF v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  Furthermore, the question whether the impugned measure would interfere with the individual's right to respect for his or her family life and, if so, whether a fair balance has been struck between the public interest involved and the individual's rights must be examined (see Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, § 137, 20 June 2002).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 41416/08

  M. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  It is, therefore, inconsistent with Article 13 for such measures to be executed before the national authorities have examined their compatibility with the Convention (see M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41416/08, § 129, 26 July 2011; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 153, 11 January 2007; and Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I).

 
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, one of the factors which the Court will take into account is the question whether its object was to humiliate and debase the person concerned, although the absence of any such purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  With reference to persons deprived of their liberty, Article 3 imposes a positive obligation on the State to ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI; Melnitis v. Latvia, no. 30779/05, § 69, 28 February 2012; and Savics v. Latvia, no. 17892/03, § 130, 27 November 2012).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  However, the fact that a substantive claim is declared inadmissible does not necessarily exclude the operation of Article 13 (see I.M. v. France, no. 9152/09, § 103, 2 February 2012; Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2007-II; and M.A.v. Cyprus, cited above, §§ 119-121).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  Turning to the remainder of the complaints under this head, although the respondent State did not raise any objection as to the Court's competence ratione personae in relation to these complaints, this issue calls for consideration proprio motu by the Court (see M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 115, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  However, Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted as requiring a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious the complaint may be: the grievance must be an "arguable" one in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 02.02.2012 - 9152/09

  Abschiebung, Asylanerkennung, erniedrigende Behandlung, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  However, the fact that a substantive claim is declared inadmissible does not necessarily exclude the operation of Article 13 (see I.M. v. France, no. 9152/09, § 103, 2 February 2012; Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2007-II; and M.A.v. Cyprus, cited above, §§ 119-121).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  In cases where the applicants faced expulsion or extradition the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-B, § 46; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 30779/05

  MELNITIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 17892/03

  SAVICS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 12853/03

  IVAN ATANASOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2012 - 28973/11

  Z.H. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 36009/08

  M.B. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 51933/08

  MURDALOVY v. RUSSIA

  The arguability of a Convention complaint forming the basis of a complaint under Article 13 must be determined in the light of the particular facts and the nature of the legal issue or issues raised (see, among other authorities, Boyle and Rice, cited above, § 55; Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, § 27, Series A no. 139; Diallo v. the Czech Republic, no. 20493/07, § 64, 23 June 2011; M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 117, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Asalya v. Turkey, no. 43875/09, § 97, 15 April 2014).
• EGMR - 41344/19 (anhängig)

  A.N.A. v. TÜRKIYE

  Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the national authorities examine the applicant's allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of Articles 2 and 3 before taking the decision to dismiss his case (see, for example, Asalya v. Turkey, no. 43875/09, §§ 113-14, 15 April 2014)? Did the court scrutinise the grounds invoked by the administrative authorities for the applicant's deportation?.