Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,9969
EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,9969)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,9969)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 27. Mai 2008 - 26565/05 (https://dejure.org/2008,9969)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,9969) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (6)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

Sonstiges

Papierfundstellen

  • NVwZ 2008, 1334
 
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 ... (742)Neu Zitiert selbst (23)

  • EGMR, 06.02.2001 - 44599/98

    BENSAID c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    Taking into account the applicant's present state of health, her removal to Zambia would not amount to treatment proscribed by Article 3.38. The following year the Court delivered judgment in Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I. The applicant, an Algerian national, was a schizophrenic who had been treated for this illness for some years in the United Kingdom.

    The suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, 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 D. v. the United Kingdom and Keenan, both cited above, and Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2000-I)." (emphasis added) This principle should therefore equally apply where the harm stems from a naturally occurring illness and a lack of adequate resources to deal with it in the receiving country, if the minimum level of severity, in the given circumstances, is attained.

    ..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.

    See Ellie Palmer, Judicial Review, Socio-Economic Rights and the Human Rights Act, (Oxford: Hart Publishing), 2007, at p. 270.2 In Bensaid v. the United Kingdom (Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I), a case concerning deportation of a schizophrenic to a country where adequate medical treatment was allegedly not available, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention: "47. "Private life' is a broad term not susceptible to exhaustive definition.

  • EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 17868/03

    NDANGOYA v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    40. The applicant in Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004, was a Tanzanian national who had been treated with antiretroviral medication which been successful in reducing his HIV levels to the point where they were no longer detectable.

    ..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.

  • EKMR, 29.05.1998 - 40900/98

    KARARA v. FINLAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    36. In Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998, the applicant, a citizen of Uganda, had been treated in Finland for an.

    ..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.

     
  • EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 13669/03

    ARCILA HENAO v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    Having regard, however, to the high threshold set by Article 3, particularly where the case does not concern the direct responsibility of the Contracting State for the infliction of harm, the Court does not find that there is a sufficiently real risk that the applicant's removal in these circumstances would be contrary to the standards of Article 3. The case does not disclose the exceptional circumstances of D. v. the United Kingdom (cited above), where the applicant was in the final stages of a terminal illness, Aids, and had no prospect of medical care or family support on expulsion to St Kitts." 39. In Arcila Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003, the applicant was a national of Colombia who, while serving a prison sentence for drug trafficking, was found to be HIV positive and was thus treated using antiretroviral medication.

    ..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.

  • EGMR, 15.02.2000 - 46553/99

    S.C.C. v. SWEDEN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    37. The applicant in S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 46553/99, 15 February 2000, was a Zambian national who had been refused leave to enter Sweden, where she had previously lived and where she had been treated for HIV.

    ..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.

  • EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

    AIREY v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    44. Although many of the rights it contains have implications of a social or economic nature, the Convention is essentially directed at the protection of civil and political rights (Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32, § 26).

    1 Airey v. Ireland, judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A no. 32.

  • EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 25629/04

    AMEGNIGAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    41. A similar conclusion was reached in Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004, where the applicant, who came from Togo, had been treated with antiretroviral treatment in the Netherlands.

    ..." 2 See B.B. v. France, judgment of 7 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; Karara v. Finland, no. 40900/98, Commission decision of 29 May 1998: illness had not yet reached an advanced stage; S.C.C. v. Sweden (dec.), no 46553/99, 15 February 2000: same type of AIDS treatment as in Sweden was available in Zambia, although at a considerable cost, but the applicant's children and family members lived there; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom, no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I: medical treatment available in Algeria, not receiving support or care to a large extent speculative; Henao v. The Netherlands (dec.), no. 13669/03, 24 June 2003: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and he had a prospect of medical care and family support in his country of origin; Ndangoya v. Sweden (dec.), no. 17868/03, 22 June 2004: applicant's illness had not reached an advanced or terminal stage and adequate treatment was to be found in Tanzania, albeit at considerable cost and with limited availability in the rural area from whence the applicant came, and he maintained some links with relatives who might be able to help him; Amegnigan v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 25629/04, 25 November 2004: applicant had not reached the stage of full-blown AIDS and was not suffering from any HIV- related illnesses and adequate treatment was in principle available in Togo albeit at a possibly considerable cost.

  • EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

    Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    The suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, 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 (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 116, ECHR 2001- III; Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 30, ECHR 2001-VII).

    1 Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III.

  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

    PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    The suffering which flows from naturally occurring illness, physical or mental, 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 (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, 2346/02, § 52, ECHR 2002-III; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI; Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 116, ECHR 2001- III; Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 30, ECHR 2001-VII).

    Where treatment humiliates or debases an individual, showing a lack of respect for, or diminishing, his or her human dignity, or arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of breaking an individual's moral and physical resistance, it may be characterised as degrading and also fall within the prohibition of Article 3 (see amongst recent authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, §§ 24-30, ECHR 2001-VII, and Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII).

  • EGMR, 22.02.1994 - 16213/90

    BURGHARTZ c. SUISSE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05
    53-54, § 63; Burghartz v. Switzerland, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 280-B, p. 28, §.
  • EKMR, 14.09.1998 - 43348/98

    M.M. v. SWITZERLAND

  • EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

    B. c. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 59330/00
  • EGMR, 22.10.1981 - 7525/76

    DUDGEON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

    SIDABRAS ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE

  • EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 19465/92

    NASRI v. FRANCE

  • EGMR, 06.07.2000 - 41874/98

    TATETE c. SUISSE

  • EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

    VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

  • EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

    Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  • EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

    KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • VGH Baden-Württemberg, 17.12.2020 - A 11 S 2042/20

    Abschiebungsverbot für einen leistungsfähigen, erwachsenen afghanischen Mann …

    Es sind also im Rahmen von § 60 Abs. 5 AufenthG i.V.m. Art. 3 EMRK nicht nur Gefahren für Leib und Leben berücksichtigungsfähig, die seitens eines Staates oder einer staatsähnlichen Organisation drohen, sondern auch "nichtstaatliche" Gefahren auf Grund prekärer Lebensbedingungen, wobei dies aber nur in ganz außergewöhnlichen Einzelfällen in Betracht kommt (…EGMR, Urteile vom 28.06.2011 - 8319/07 und 11449/07 -, Rn. 278 ff., vom 21.01.2011 - 30696/09 - , Rn. 253 ff., und vom 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 - , Rn. 42; BVerwG…, Beschluss vom 13.02.2019 - 1 B 2.19 -, juris Rn. 6, …und Urteil vom 13.06.2013 - 10 C 15.12 -, juris Rn. 24 f.;… VGH Bad.-Württ., Urteile vom 29.10.2019 - A 11 S 1203/19 -, juris Rn. 96…, vom 26.06.2019 - A 11 S 2108/18 -, juris Rn. 26, …und vom 24.07.2013 - A 11 S 697/13 -, Leitsatz 5 sowie insbesondere auch juris Rn. 79 ff.;… Bay. VGH, Urteile vom 26.10.2020 - 13a B 20.31087 -, juris Rn. 21…, vom 01.10.2020 - 13a B 20.31004 -, juris Rn. 22, …und vom 08.11.2018 - 13a B 17.31918 -, juris Rn. 20; Hess. VGH…, Urteil vom 23.08.2019 - 7 A 2750/15.A -, juris Rn. 45; OVG NRW…, Urteil vom 18.06.2019 - 13 A 3930/18.A -, juris Rn. 104; Nds. OVG…, Urteil vom 29.01.2019 - 9 LB 93/18 -, juris Rn. 47).

    Die tatsächliche Gefahr einer Art. 3 EMRK zuwiderlaufenden Behandlung muss aufgrund aller Umstände des Falles hinreichend sicher und darf nicht hypothetisch sein (EGMR, Urteile vom 28.06.2011 - 8319/07 und 11449/07 -, Rn. 212 ff., vom 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 - , Rn. 34 ff., …und vom 06.02.2011 - 44599/98 -, Rn. 36 ff.; vgl. auch OVG NRW…, Urteil vom 18.06.2019 - 13 A 3930/18.A -, juris Rn. 43; Nds. OVG…, Urteil vom 29.01.2019 - 9 LB 93/18 -, juris Rn. 52).

  • VGH Baden-Württemberg, 12.10.2018 - A 11 S 316/17

    Kein Abschiebungsverbot nach Kabul für alleinstehende gesunde Männer im …

    BVerwG, Urteil vom 13.06.2013 - 10 C 13.12 -, NVwZ 2013, 1167, Rn. 24 f.; VGH Bad.-Württ., Urteil vom 24.07.2013 - A 11 S 697/13 -, Leitsatz 5 sowie insbesondere auch juris Rn. 79 ff.; EGMR, Urteile vom 02.05.1997 - 146/1996/767/964 - (D./Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 1998, 161; vom 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 - (N./Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2008, 1334; vom 21.01.2011 - 30696/09 - (M.S.S./Belgien und Griechenland) - NVwZ 2011, 413; vom 28.06.2011 - 8319/07 und 11449/07 - (Sufi und Elmi/Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2012, 681 und vom 13.10.2011 - 10611/09 - (Husseini/Schweden), NJOZ 2012, 952.

    EGMR, Urteil vom 28.06.2011 - 8319/07 und 11449/07 - (Sufi und Elmi/Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2012, 681; Entscheidung vom 22.09.2009 - 30471/08 - (Abdolkhani und Karimnia/Türkei), InfAuslR 2010, 47; Urteil vom 17.07.2008 - 25904/07 - (NA./Vereinigtes Königreich), juris; Urteil vom 28.02.2008 - 37201/06 - (Saadi/Italien), NVwZ 2008, 1330 Rn. 140; vom 27.05.2008 - 26565/05 - (N./Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2008, 1334 sowie Urteil vom 06.02.2001 - 44599/98 - (Bensaid/Vereinigtes Königreich), NVwZ 2002, 453.

  • BVerwG, 31.01.2013 - 10 C 15.12

    Afghanistan; Provinz Helmand; Kabul; Abschiebung; Abschiebungsverbot; …

    Anderes kann nur in besonderen Ausnahmefällen gelten, in denen humanitäre Gründe zwingend gegen die Aufenthaltsbeendigung sprechen (EGMR, Urteil vom 27. Mai 2008 - Nr. 26565/05, N./Vereinigtes Königreich - NVwZ 2008, 1334 Rn. 42).

    Doch verpflichte Art. 3 EMRK die Staaten nicht, Fortschritte in der Medizin sowie Unterschiede in sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Standards durch freie und unbegrenzte Versorgung von Ausländern ohne Bleiberecht zu beseitigen (EGMR, Urteil vom 27. Mai 2008 a.a.O. Rn. 44).

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