Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Turkmenistan) Violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 8320/04
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nielsen and Johnson v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; and H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 758, § 37).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; and H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 758, § 37).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  In cases where an applicant alleges that he or she is a member of a group systematically exposed to a practice of ill-treatment, the Court considers that the protection of Article 3 of the Convention enters into play when the applicant establishes, where necessary on the basis of the sources mentioned in the previous paragraph, that there are serious reasons to believe in the existence of the practice in question and his or her membership of the group concerned (see, mutatis mutandis, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 138-149, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 132, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  If the proceedings are not executed with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under that provision (see Chahal, cited above, § 113; Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 19, § 48; and also Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 55, § 36).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85

  KOLOMPAR c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  If the proceedings are not executed with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under that provision (see Chahal, cited above, § 113; Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 19, § 48; and also Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 55, § 36).

• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Pour apprécier l'existence de ce risque, il faut se référer par priorité aux circonstances dont l'Etat en cause avait ou devait avoir connaissance au moment de l'expulsion (Riabikine c. Russie, no 8320/04, § 111, 19 juin 2008).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 31098/10

  AL HAMDANI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the deportation proceedings, although temporarily suspended pursuant to the request made by the Court, have nevertheless been in progress and are in strict compliance with domestic law (compare S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011; contrast Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 132, 19 June 2008, and Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 134, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 3727/08

  AL HUSIN v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the deportation proceedings, although temporarily suspended pursuant to the request made by the Court, have nevertheless been in progress since 1 February 2011 and in strict compliance with domestic law (compare S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011; contrast Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 132, 19 June 2008, and Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 134, ECHR 2009-...).

 
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 39549/02

  BENIASHVILI v. RUSSIA AND GEORGIA

  Consequently, by the time of his transfer to the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, the applicant obviously knew the reasons for his international search, arrest and continued detention and possessed sufficient details about the charge of murder which had been brought against him in 1998 (compare, for instance, with Ryabikin v. Russia (dec.), no. 8320/04, ECHR 10 April 2007 and Batalov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30789/04, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08

  KURBANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases against Russia its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the rights of persons detained pending extradition in so far as the lawfulness of their detention is concerned and the availability of judicial review of such detention (see, for example, Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 77 and 88-89, 11 October 2007; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 131 and 139-140, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 115 and 122, 11 December 2008; Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  They alternatively submitted that the award of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage should correspond to the awards made in two other Russian cases (Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 115, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts), and Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 145, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  The applicant did not question the availability or effectiveness of a remedy for examination of the lawfulness of her detention, contrary to all the previous Russian cases concerning extradition examined by the Court (see Bordovskiy, cited above, §§ 60-68; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 142-52, 24 April 2008; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 79-90, 11 October 2007; Shchebet, cited above, §§ 71-79; and Ryabikin v Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 134-41, 19 June 2008).