Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)

  (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GÉORGIE c. RUSSIE (I)

  (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I) - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings;Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (3)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• wolterskluwer-online.de (Kurzinformation)

  Urteil im Verfahren Georgien gegen Russland I

• dw.de (Pressebericht, 03.07.2014)

  Russland wegen Vertreibung verurteilt

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Georgia v. Russia (I)

  [16.04.2009]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 13255/07
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 13255/07
• EGMR, 31.01.2019 - 13255/07
• EGMR, 03.12.2020 - 13255/07

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2015, 569

Wird zitiert von ... (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.09.2015 - 23380/09

  BOUYID v. BELGIUM

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned (see, among other authorities, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and Labita, Gäfgen and El-Masri, all cited above; see also Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 192, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.

  The Court regularly reiterates that it is attentive to the seriousness attaching to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among other authorities, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Mathew v. the Netherlands, no. 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005-IX; and Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 94, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 38263/08

  Russland für Menschenrechtsverstöße nach Südkaukasuskrieg verurteilt - Russland …

  The Court refers in this connection to the general principles which were recently summarised as follows in Georgia v. Russia (I) ([GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014):.

  In this connection, it reiterates that "Article 41 of the Convention does, as such, apply to inter-State cases" (see Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 25781/94, § 43, ECHR 2014), and it refers to the three criteria it has set out for establishing whether awarding just satisfaction was justified in an inter-State case: "(i) the type of complaint made by the applicant Government, which had to concern the violation of basic human rights of its nationals (or other victims); (ii) whether the victims could be identified; and (iii) the main purpose of bringing the proceedings" (see Georgia v. Russia (I) (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 20, 29 January 2019).

  My colleagues and I have had the privilege of sitting in the fourth inter-State case ever to be resolved on the merits by the Court (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25; Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV; and Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

  Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

  The prohibition in question is absolute, for no derogation from it is permissible even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation or in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned (see, inter alia, Chahal, cited above, § 79; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 192, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 01.09.2015 - 16483/12

  Zum Umgang mit Flüchtlingen in Lampedusa; unmenschliche Behandlung; unzulässige …

  In the cases of Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 62-63, ECHR 2002-I and Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, § 175, ECHR 2014 (extracts), the Court found that there were official policies of targeting a certain minority group for removal (Roma and Georgian nationals respectively).
• LG Düsseldorf, 05.02.2018 - 18 KLs 2/17

  Hohe Freiheitsstrafe gegen neun Angeklagte wegen betrügerischer Abrechnung von …

  In mehreren Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte wurden schlechte Haftbedingungen in Russland festgestellt (vgl. EGMR, Urt. v. 3. Juli 2014 - 13255/07, NVwZ 2015, 569;… Urt. v. 10. Januar 2012 - 42525/07 u. 60800/08, NVwZ-RR 2013, 284;… Urt. v. 15. Juli 2002 - 47095/99, NVwZ 2005, 303).
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among other examples, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 88, 23 February 2012; El-Masri, cited above, § 151; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 394; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 394; and Nasr and Ghali, cited above, § 119).

  Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 46454/11

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among other examples, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 88, 23 February 2012; and El-Masri, cited above, § 151; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 394; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 394; and Nasr and Ghali v. Italy, no. 44883/09, § 119, 23 February 2016).

  Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 13216/05

  Rechte vertriebener armenischer Kurden gestärkt

  Or en l'espèce, même la possibilité d'entendre des témoins à Strasbourg n'a pas été envisagée, bien que cela ait déjà été fait dans des affaires de même nature, en particulier dans l'affaire Géorgie c. Russie (I) ([GC], no 13255/07, CEDH 2014).
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 14594/07

  BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In a judgment of 20 December 2016 ("the principal judgment") (Berdzenishvili and Others v. Russia, nos. 14594/07 and 6 others, 20 December 2016), the Court found that several of the applicants had been in one way or another subjected to the administrative practice of arresting, detaining and expelling Georgian nationals, which was in place in the autumn of 2006 in Russia and which the Court had established in its judgment in the inter-State case Georgia v. Russia (I) ([GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

  In its judgment in the inter-State case concerning just satisfaction (Georgia v. Russia (I) (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 13255/07, 31 January 2019), the Court held that the Russian Federation had to pay the Georgian Government a lump-sum of EUR 10, 000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage suffered by a group of at least 1, 500 Georgian nationals (ibid, § 76).

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 5310/71

  IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  See also the Commission Report in Cyprus v. Turkey, n° 6780/74 and 6950/75, 10 July 1976, § 77; §§ 111 and 339 of the judgment in Cyprus v. Turkey, n° 25781/94, where it was stated that resort to illustrative cases was justified by time constraints and the Commission's assessment of the relevance of additional witness testimony, and later Georgia v. Russia n° 1 [GC], n° 13255/07, 3 July 2014, § 128.
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 14594/07

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 16363/07

  DZIDZAVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 11353/06

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 19.09.2024 - 60778/19

  ARAB AND ARAB v. HUNGARY
• VG Berlin, 04.03.2016 - 23 K 26.16

  Systemische Schwachstellen des Asylverfahrens in Ungarn
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 16870/11

  KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE v. CYPRUS and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 03.02.2026 - 57185/17

  O.H. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 4133/16

  AHMET TUNÇ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 30.08.2016 - 64418/10

  MIHHAILOV v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 40952/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 29272/08

  ÖZEN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 51295/11

  BADALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.12.2016 - 19356/07

  SHIOSHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 8494/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 47741/16

  MSKHILADZE v. RUSSIA