Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 37014/97 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,28280) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ASPICHI DEHWARI v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Protokoll Nr. 6 Art. 1 MRK
Struck out of the list (arrangement) (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 12.03.1998 - 37014/97
- EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 37014/97
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 37014/97
In this connection, the Court points out that in several previous cases it has had occasion to rule on the responsibility under the Convention of a Contracting State where the complaint was that there existed substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned would, if expelled or extradited, face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 90-91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, § 69; the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36 §§ 107-08; and the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859, §§ 95-97). - EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 37014/97
In this connection, the Court points out that in several previous cases it has had occasion to rule on the responsibility under the Convention of a Contracting State where the complaint was that there existed substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned would, if expelled or extradited, face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 90-91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, § 69; the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36 §§ 107-08; and the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859, §§ 95-97). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.04.2000 - 37014/97
In this connection, the Court points out that in several previous cases it has had occasion to rule on the responsibility under the Convention of a Contracting State where the complaint was that there existed substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned would, if expelled or extradited, face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 90-91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, § 69; the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36 §§ 107-08; and the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859, §§ 95-97).