Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1991,11594
EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87 (https://dejure.org/1991,11594)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30.10.1991 - 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87 (https://dejure.org/1991,11594)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 30. Oktober 1991 - 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87 (https://dejure.org/1991,11594)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1991,11594) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 1992, 3085 (Ls.)
  • NVwZ 1992, 869
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (485)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
    The Court's examination of the existence of a risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 (art. 3) at the relevant time must necessarily be a rigorous one in view of the absolute character of this provision and the fact that it enshrines one of the fundamental values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see the Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 34, para. 88).

    The applicants accepted that judicial review might be an effective remedy where, as in the Soering case (above-mentioned judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161), the facts were not in dispute between the parties and the issue was whether the decision was such that no reasonable Secretary of State could have made it.

    Its effect is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent "national authority" both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, p. 47, para. 120).

    The English courts will not review a decision by reason only of the fact that the deciding authority failed to consider whether or not there was a breach of the Convention (see the Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 18-19, para. 35).

  • EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

    CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
    In its Cruz Varas judgment of 20 March 1991 the Court held that expulsion by a Contracting State of an asylum seeker may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned faced a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he was returned (Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70).

    In its Cruz Varas judgment of 20 March 1991 the Court noted the following principles relevant to its assessment of the risk of ill-treatment (Series A no. 201, pp. 29-31, paras. 75-76 and 83):.

    The Court also attaches importance to the knowledge and experience that the United Kingdom authorities had in dealing with large numbers of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka, many of whom were granted leave to stay, and to the fact that the personal circumstances of each applicant had been carefully considered by the Secretary of State in the light of a substantial body of material concerning the current situation in Sri Lanka and the position of the Tamil community within it (see the above-mentioned Cruz Varas judgment, Series A no. 201, p. 31, para. 81, and paragraphs 5, 17, 34, 46, 57, 77-79 and 97 above).

  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
    It is not disputed before the Court that the applicants" claim under Article 3 (art. 3) was an "arguable" one on its merits (see, inter alia, the Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).
  • EGMR, 18.02.1991 - 12313/86

    MOUSTAQUIM c. BELGIQUE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
    At the outset, the Court observes that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including Article 3 (art. 3), to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see the Moustaquim judgment of 18 February 1991, Series A no. 193, p. 19, para. 43, and the authorities cited therein).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

    The Court also notes that the right to political asylum is not contained in either the Convention or its Protocols (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 102, Series A no. 215, and Ahmed v. Austria, 17 December 1996, § 38, Reports 1996-VI).

    103, Series A no. 215.

  • EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

    V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …

    Der Gerichtshof hat in seiner Rechtsprechung als Beispiel dafür, dass die Hoheitsgewalt eines beklagten Staates "sich nicht auf sein nationales Hoheitsgebiet beschränkt" (o.a. Urteil Loizidou ( vorgängige prozessuale Einreden ), § 62), auf Situationen hingewiesen, in denen die Auslieferung oder Ausweisung einer Person durch eine Vertragspartei Probleme hinsichtlich Artikel 2 und/oder 3 (oder ausnahmsweise in Bezug auf Artikel 5 und/oder 6) bereiten kann, d.h. die Verantwortung des Staates aufgrund der Konvention begründet (o.a. Urteil Söring, § 91, Cruz Varas und andere Beschwerdeführer ./. Schweden vom 20. März 1991, Serie A Nr. 201, §§ 69 u. 70, und Vilvarajah und andere Beschwerdeführer ./. Vereinigtes Königreich vom 30. Oktober 1991, Serie A Nr. 215, § 103).
  • EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 37201/06

    Saadi ./. Italien

    In addition, neither the Convention nor its Protocols confer the right to political asylum (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, § 102, and Ahmed v. Austria, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, § 38).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht