Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHACHATUROV v. ARMENIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Russia);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KHACHATUROV v. ARMENIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11

  Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 59687/17

  The Court reiterates that the implementation of Article 35 § 3 (a), which allows it to declare inadmissible any individual application that it considers to be "an abuse of the right of individual application", is an "exceptional procedural measure" and that the concept of "abuse" refers to its ordinary meaning, namely the harmful exercise of a right by its holder in a manner that is inconsistent with the purpose for which such right is granted (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 66, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, § 62, 15 September 2009).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 59687/17

  It is the settled case-law of the Court that 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 extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 59687/17

  The Court has held that the suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness may be covered by Article 3, where it is, or risks being, exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion or other measures, for which the authorities can be held responsible (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 59687/17

  In order to determine whether the threshold of severity has been reached, the Court may also take other factors into consideration, in particular: the purpose for which the ill-treatment was inflicted, together with the intention or motivation behind it, although the absence of an intention to humiliate or debase the victim cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3; the context in which the ill-treatment was inflicted, such as an atmosphere of heightened tension and emotions; and whether the victim was in a vulnerable situation (see Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 117, 25 June 2019).

• BVerfG, 20.04.2022 - 2 BvR 1713/21

  Verfassungsbeschwerden gegen Auslieferungen nach Schweden und in die Türkei …

  Um eine solche Gefahr auszuschließen, hat er dem mit einem Auslieferungsersuchen befassten Gericht eigene Aufklärungs- und Prüfungspflichten auferlegt, wenn hinreichende Anhaltspunkte für eine fehlende Reisefähigkeit aufgrund einer physischen oder psychischen Erkrankung vorliegen (vgl. EGMR, Khachaturov v. Armenia, Urteil vom 24. Juni 2021, Nr. 59687/17, §§ 84 ff. m.w.N.).

  Die Prüfung der mit der Auslieferung verbundenen spezifischen Risiken muss insbesondere auf einer aktuellen fachkundigen Einzelfallbeurteilung des Gesundheitszustands der betroffenen Person beruhen, die auch die Bedingungen der geplanten Übergabe in der spezifischen Auslieferungssituation berücksichtigt (vgl. EGMR, Khachaturov v. Armenia, Urteil vom 24. Juni 2021, Nr. 59687/17, § 91).

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 13668/21

  MELIA v. GEORGIA

  The Court reiterates that the implementation of Article 35 § 3 (a), which allows it to declare inadmissible any individual application that it considers to be "an abuse of the right of individual application", is an "exceptional procedural measure" and that the concept of "abuse" refers to its ordinary meaning, namely the harmful exercise of a right by its holder in a manner that is inconsistent with the purpose for which such right is granted (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 66, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Khachaturov v. Armenia, no. 59687/17, § 70, 24 June 2021).