Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mamazhonov v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (30)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  The Government, referring to the case of McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324), alleged that the claimed costs had not been actually and necessarily incurred, and that they were rather vague and not based on supporting documents.
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  OPEN DOOR AND DUBLIN WELL WOMAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  This should not lead, however, to abdication of the Court's responsibility and a renunciation of all supervision of the result obtained from using domestic remedies, otherwise the rights guaranteed by the Convention would be devoid of any substance (see Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 69, Series A no. 246-A, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 192, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  The Court is of the view, however, that the obligation to comply with the present judgment cannot be limited to payment of the monetary compensation awarded under Article 41, which is only designed to make reparation for such consequences of a violation that cannot otherwise be remedied (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 250, ECHR 2000-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  The Court reiterates at the outset that the obligation on Contracting Parties under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 198, ECHR 2012, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  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, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  However it is the Court's settled case-law that expulsion or extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 125, ECHR 2008, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94), and that the right to asylum is not explicitly protected by either the Convention or its Protocols (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, ECHR 2007 I).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  This may be of value in confirming or refuting the assessment that has been made by the Contracting Party or the well-foundedness or otherwise of an applicant's fears (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215; and Mamatkulov and Askarov [GC], cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  This may be of value in confirming or refuting the assessment that has been made by the Contracting Party or the well-foundedness or otherwise of an applicant's fears (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215; and Mamatkulov and Askarov [GC], cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94), and that the right to asylum is not explicitly protected by either the Convention or its Protocols (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, ECHR 2007 I).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

• OVG Niedersachsen, 29.01.2019 - 9 LB 93/18

  "faktischer Iraner"; "real risk"; Abschiebung; Afghanistan; allgemeine Gewalt; …

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte entnimmt Art. 3 EMRK die Verpflichtung, den Betroffenen nicht in ein bestimmtes Land abzuschieben, wenn es ernsthafte und stichhaltige Gründe dafür gibt, dass er im Fall seiner Abschiebung tatsächlich Gefahr läuft, im Aufnahmeland einer Art. 3 EMRK widersprechenden Behandlung ausgesetzt zu werden (…vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13.12.2016 - 41738/10 [Paposhvili v. Belgium] - HUDOC Rn. 173;… vom 23.8.2016 - 59166/12 [J. K. and others v. Sweden] - HUDOC Rn. 79;… vom 14.4.2015 - 65692/12 [Tatar v. Schweiz] - HUDOC Rn. 39;… vom 4.11.2014 - 29217/12 [Tarakhel v. Switzerland] - HUDOC Rn. 93; vom 23.10.2014 - 17239/13 [Mamazhonov v. Russia] - HUDOC Rn. 128).
• OVG Niedersachsen, 11.03.2021 - 9 LB 129/19

  Antrag auf Zuerkennung der Flüchtlingseigenschaft aufgrund vermeintlicher …

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte entnimmt Art. 3 EMRK die Verpflichtung, den Betroffenen nicht in ein bestimmtes Land abzuschieben, wenn es ernsthafte und stichhaltige Gründe dafür gibt, dass er im Fall seiner Abschiebung tatsächlich Gefahr läuft, im Aufnahmeland einer Art. 3 EMRK widersprechenden Behandlung ausgesetzt zu werden (…vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13.12.2016 - 41738/10 [Paposhvili v. Belgium] - HUDOC Rn. 173;… vom 23.8.2016, a. a. O., Rn. 79;… vom 14.4.2015 - 65692/12 [Tatar v. Schweiz] - HUDOC Rn. 39;… vom 4.11.2014, a. a. O., Rn. 93; vom 23.10.2014 - 17239/13 [Mamazhonov v. Russia] - HUDOC Rn. 128).
• OVG Niedersachsen, 24.09.2019 - 9 LB 136/19

  Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Gruppenverfolgung von Yeziden in dem Distrikt Sindjar in …

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte entnimmt Art. 3 EMRK die Verpflichtung, den Betroffenen nicht in ein bestimmtes Land abzuschieben, wenn es ernsthafte und stichhaltige Gründe dafür gibt, dass er im Fall seiner Abschiebung tatsächlich Gefahr läuft, im Aufnahmeland einer Art. 3 EMRK widersprechenden Behandlung ausgesetzt zu werden (…vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13.12.2016 - 41738/10 [Paposhvili v. Belgium] - HUDOC Rn. 173;… vom 23.8.2016, a. a. O., Rn. 79;… vom 14.4.2015 - 65692/12 [Tatar v. Schweiz] - HUDOC Rn. 39;… vom 4.11.2014, a. a. O., Rn. 93; vom 23.10.2014 - 17239/13 [Mamazhonov v. Russia] - HUDOC Rn. 128).

 
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 46240/15

  A.S. c. FRANCE

  La Cour a rappelé, dans l'affaire Savriddin Dzhurayev c. Russie (no 71386/10, § § 211 à 213, CEDH 2013 (extraits), l'importance cruciale et le rôle vital des mesures provisoires dans le système de la Convention (voir également Trabelsi c. Belgique, no 140/10, § 144, CEDH 2014 (extraits), Mamazhonov c. Russie, no 17239/13, § 214, 23 octobre 2014 ou encore M.A. c. France, no 9373/15, § 64, 1er février 2018).

  [20] Voir, par exemple, Mamzhonov c. Russie, n° 17239/13, 23 octobre 2014, § 215, où, lorsqu'elle a trouvé une violation de l'article 34 pour non-respect d'une mesure provisoire, la Cour a relevé: « it is alarming that the authorities" conduct appears to follow the same pattern [...].

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, it is the Court's settled case-law that expulsion or extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention) where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being killed or subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39642/03, 1 March 2005, with further references, and Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, §§ 127-28, 23 October 2014).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

  T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the application of Article 3 have been summarised recently by the Court in the judgments F.G. v. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-27, ECHR 2016), and J.K. and Others v. Sweden ([GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 77-105, ECHR 2016); and, in the context of extraditions from Russia to Central Asian States, in Mamazhonov v. Russia (no.17239/13, §§ 127-35, 23 October 2014).

  See by contrast, Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Mamazhonov v. Russia no. 17239/13, § 141, 23 October 2014; and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008).".

• OVG Niedersachsen, 25.05.2018 - 9 LA 64/18

  Nationales Abschiebungsverbot; Afghanistan; unmenschliche oder erniedrigende …

  Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte entnimmt Art. 3 EMRK die Verpflichtung, den Betroffenen nicht in ein bestimmtes Land abzuschieben, wenn es ernsthafte und stichhaltige Gründe dafür gibt, dass er im Fall seiner Abschiebung tatsächlich Gefahr läuft, im Aufnahmeland einer Art. 3 EMRK widersprechenden Behandlung ausgesetzt zu werden (…vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 13.12.2016 - 41738/10 [Paposhvili v. Belgium] - HUDOC Rn. 172;… vom 14.4.2015 - 65692/12 [Tatar ./. Schweiz] - HUDOC Rn. 39;… vom 4.11.2014 - 29217/12 [Tarakhel ./. Switzerland] - HUDOC Rn. 93; vom 23.10.2014 - 17239/13 [Mamazhonov ./. Russia] - HUDOC Rn. 128).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 80206/17

  J.A. AND A.A. v. TÜRKIYE

  In respect of the standard of review of claims of ill-treatment at the domestic level, the Court must be satisfied that the assessment made by the authorities of the Contracting State is adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic material as well as by material originating from other reliable and objective sources such as, for instance, other Contracting or non-Contracting States, agencies of the United Nations and reputable non-governmental organisations (see, for example, Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, § 135, 23 October 2014, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 30227/18

  YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the application of Article 3 have been summarised recently by the Court in the judgment in the case of F.G. v. Sweden, [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-27, ECHR 2016, and in the context of removals from Russia to Central Asian states in Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, §§ 127-37, 23 October 2014.

  The Russian authorities were therefore presented with evidence capable of proving that the applicant belonged to a vulnerable group of persons who were systematically exposed to a practice of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and whose removal would expose them to a real risk of such ill-treatment (Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, § 140, 23 October 2014 and follow-up cases of N.M. v. Russia [Committee], no. 29343/18, 3 December 2019; S.S. and others v. Russia [Committee], no. 2236/16, 25 June 2019; B.U. and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 59609/17, 22 January 2019; T.M. and others v. Russia [Committee], no. 31189/15, 7 November 2017).

• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a toutefois relevé à plusieurs reprises dans des affaires qui concernaient des cas d'extradition que les autorités russes interprètent l'article 1 § 1-1 de la loi sur les réfugiés d'une manière stricte, excluant son application dans le cas d'allégations d'un risque d'être soumis à de mauvais traitements pour des raisons autres que celles qu'il énumère (voir, à titre d'exemples, Turgunov c. Russie, no 15590/14, §§ 20-24, 22 octobre 2015, Khalikov c. Russie, no 66373/13, §§ 21-24, 26 février 2015, Mamazhonov c. Russie, no 17239/13, §§ 42-47, 23 octobre 2014, Mamadaliyev c. Russie, no 5614/13, §§ 29-33, 24 juillet 2014, Kadirzhanov et Mamashev c. Russie, nos 42351/13 et 47823/13, §§ 53, 60 et 63, 17 juillet 2014, Ermakov c. Russie, no 43165/10, §§ 30-42, 7 novembre 2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev, précité, §§ 27-29, Makhmudzhan Ergashev c. Russie, no 49747/11, §§ 20-23 et 28-29, 16 octobre 2012, et Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, §§ 33-39, 2 octobre 2012).
• OVG Thüringen, 07.05.2019 - 3 ZKO 315/19

  Anforderung an die Darlegung des Zulassungsgrundes der grundsätzlichen Bedeutung …
• VG Oldenburg, 12.01.2023 - 12 A 1303/20

  Afghanistan: Keine Flüchtlingseigenschaft wegen befürchteter Verfolgung des …
• OVG Thüringen, 07.06.2019 - 3 ZKO 315/19
• VG Oldenburg, 09.02.2021 - 5 A 6362/17

  Afghanistan: keine inländische Fluchtalternative für Familie mit minderjährigen …
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29343/18

  N.M. v. RUSSIA
• VG Halle, 12.07.2019 - 2 A 693/17
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  O.O. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 13927/21

  DALABAYEV AND MAGARAMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 12767/20

  I.U. AND Z.K. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 38042/18

  A.K. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 67485/17

  R.R. AND A.R. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 65122/17

  S.B. AND S.Z. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 2236/16

  S.S. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 12018/16

  U.A. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 48917/15

  I.U. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  A.R. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 12120/20

  A.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 58182/14

  K.I. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 31189/15

  T.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA