Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The scope and depth of the courts" review of extradition requests by foreign authorities may be somewhat limited (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, § 93, 20 February 2007).

  The Court reiterates that in assessing the general situation in a particular country it attached certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection bodies and organisations or governmental sources (see, for example, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 99-100, Reports 1996-V; Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, ECHR 2005-VI, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).

• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, and to the fact that no violation was found in respect of part of the application, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 6, 000 covering costs under all heads (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The Court reiterates that a detention may be unlawful if its outer purpose differs from the real one (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, § 60; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42, ECHR 2002-I; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 142, 31 May 2011).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  Consequently, the Court must examine whether the conclusion reached by the Russian courts in the present case, namely that the applicant did not face any risk of ill-treatment if returned to Tajikistan, was based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence, whether all relevant factors were assessed, and whether inferences made by the domestic courts from the facts of the case were compatible with the letter and spirit of Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's case-law (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The Court reiterates that a detention may be unlawful if its outer purpose differs from the real one (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, § 60; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42, ECHR 2002-I; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 142, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000, and Altun v. Turkey, no. 24561/94, § 42, 1 June 2004).
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 53566/99

  MÜSLIM c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The Court reiterates that in assessing the general situation in a particular country it attached certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection bodies and organisations or governmental sources (see, for example, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 99-100, Reports 1996-V; Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, ECHR 2005-VI, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 24561/94

  ALTUN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000, and Altun v. Turkey, no. 24561/94, § 42, 1 June 2004).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02

  SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The Court reiterates that in assessing the general situation in a particular country it attached certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection bodies and organisations or governmental sources (see, for example, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 99-100, Reports 1996-V; Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, ECHR 2005-VI, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  ISKANDAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  The Court has found that such persons were at an increased risk of ill-treatment and that their extradition would give rise to a violation of Article 3. In the case of Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010, the Court found that the forced removal to Tajikistan of the applicant, who had been charged, inter alia, with terrorism and gangsterism in a religious context, was in breach of Russia's obligation to protect him against ill-treatment.
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  KHAYDAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  SHAKUROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  KHODZHAYEV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (iii) lawyers engaged by the IHR under the Right to Asylum programme had represented applicants in a significant number of cases before the Court, with over fifty judgments delivered so far, including such key cases as Z.A. and Others v. Russia ([GC] (nos. 61411/15 and 3 others, 21 November 2019); Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, 25 April 2013); Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013); and Abdulkhakov v. Russia (no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012);.
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  69234/11 and 2 others, §§ 126-27, 11 February 2016); or the authorities manipulate procedures to prolong the detention for the same purpose (see Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, §§ 92-95), or to delay having to obtain judicial authorisation for the detention, as required under domestic law (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 86-88, 24 June 2010), or to proceed with a disguised extradition (see Bozano v. France, cited above, §§ 59-60; Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 58, 31 March 2011; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 163 and 165, 18 April 2013; and Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, § 65, 15 January 2015); or the applicant is illegally abducted and surrendered to another State (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 109-15 and 148-51, 23 September 2010); or the citizens of another State are indiscriminately arrested with a view to being deported en masse as a measure of reprisal (see Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 185-86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) - the Court finds an absence of a legitimate ground for the deprivation of liberty and accordingly a breach of Article 5 § 1.
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 60125/11

  V.M. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Article 3 applies if the applicant has adduced evidence capable of proving that there are "substantial grounds for believing" that, if a measure complained of were to be implemented, the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see M.S.S., cited above, § 365, and Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 112-113, 18 April 2013).

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 40462/16

  M.N. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Si les rapports émanant d'États ou d'organisations internationales et non gouvernementales font état de représailles contre les personnes ne respectant pas les consignes gouvernementales en matière d'éducation religieuse des enfants de moins de 18 ans, il n'en est pas ainsi des adultes pratiquant et étudiant la religion musulmane individuellement ou en communauté, sauf s'ils appartiennent aux groupes islamistes extrémistes (Gaforov c. Russie, no 25404/09, §§ 101-140, 21 octobre 2010, Azimov c. Russie, no 67474/11, §§ 102-143, 18 avril 2013).
• EGMR, 21.06.2018 - 66702/13

  S.Z. v. GREECE

  To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the grounds of detention relied on by the Government, the place and conditions of detention must be appropriate, and the length of the detention must not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 161, 18 April 2013; and L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR - 32/21 (anhängig)

  M.H. v. TÜRKIYE

  Did the applicant's detention comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see, A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, § 90, 15 December 2016; Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, no. 10486/10, §§ 117-19, 20 December 2011; and Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 72, 12 February 2013)? In particular, was there a realistic prospect of the applicant's deportation to his country of origin or to a safe third country, especially after the annulment of the deportation order by the Istanbul First Administrative Court's decision of 10 March 2016? Have the removal proceedings been conducted with the requisite diligence (compare, inter alia, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 172, 18 April 2013, and Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2), no. 10112/16, §§ 96-98, 25 June 2019)?.
• EGMR - 54813/15 (anhängig)

  NARALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the instant case in the light of the Court's findings in a similar situation in Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, § 164 et seq., 18 April 2013)?.
• EGMR - 55036/16 (anhängig)

  AKISKALI v. RUSSIA

  Was the applicant's detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, was it lawful in the sense of being free from arbitrariness and compatible with the requirement that it should be carried out in good faith and be closely connected to the grounds of detention invoked by the Government (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 161, 18 April 2013; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, 3 July 2012, with further references)? Did the domestic courts verify the applicant's version of events, examined the operative K. and the video recording made by the applicant? Did they address the applicant's grounds of appeal?.
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41903/10

  A.H. AND J.K. v. CYPRUS

  Detention should still be lawful and not arbitrary (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 169, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 41858/10

  K.F. v. CYPRUS

  Detention should still be lawful and not arbitrary (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 169, 18 April 2013).