Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NIZOMKHON DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition) Violation of Article 38 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering, cited above, § 88); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right of individual application and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 29.10.1992 - 14234/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  This should not lead, however, to abdication of the Court's responsibility and a renunciation of all supervision of the result obtained from using domestic remedies, otherwise the rights guaranteed by the Convention would be devoid of any substance (see Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 29 October 1992, § 69, Series A no. 246-A, and Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 192, ECHR 2006-V).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  The Court reiterates that the obligation on Contracting Parties, under Article 1 of the Convention, to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, including such ill-treatment administered by private individuals (see El Masri, cited above, § 198, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 115, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicants" allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 76, 15 January 2009, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  That means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to find out what happened and should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to close their investigation or to use as the basis of their decisions (see Assenov and Others, cited above, § 103; Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts); and El Masri, cited above, § 183).
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  Although the number of days taken by the relevant proceedings is obviously an important element, it is not necessarily in itself decisive for the question of whether a decision has been given with the requisite speed (see Merie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 664/05, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  It is the settled case-law of the Court that expulsion or 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 deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], cited above, § 125, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  In certain circumstances, where the events at issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-XII; and Iskandarov, cited above, § 108).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  This may be of value in confirming or refuting the assessment that has been made by the Contracting Party or the well-foundedness or otherwise of an applicant's fears (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215; and Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  This may be of value in confirming or refuting the assessment that has been made by the Contracting Party or the well-foundedness or otherwise of an applicant's fears (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215; and Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 43611/11

  F.G. v. SWEDEN

  Moreover, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see, among other authorities, Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 179-80, 24 March 2011; Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, § 113, 3 October 2013; and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 155, ECHR 2013 (extracts).
• EGMR, 23.08.2016 - 59166/12

  J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN

  31890/11, παρ.
• EGMR, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  Kirgisistan: nicht mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit drohende …

  104. Moreover, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see, among other authorities, Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, §§ 179-80, ECHR 2011; Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, § 113, 3 October 2013; and Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, § 155).

• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 22405/04

  [ENG]

  Bearing in mind the six-month requirement laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not competent to examine these grievances (for the same approach see Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, § 159, 3 October 2013; Khudoyorov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 6847/02, 22 February 2005; and Artemov v. Russia, no. 14945/03, § 90, 3 April 2014).
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 42705/11

  ESTEMIROVA v. RUSSIA

  Given that the Government's failure to comply with the Court's request on such a crucial point undermined its ability to examine the merits of the applicant's complaint by clarifying important issues related to the effectiveness of the investigation (see paragraph 69 above), the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 38 of the Convention (compare Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, §§ 178-79, 5 February 2009; Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, §§ 297-302, 26 April 2011; Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 163-65, 3 October 2013; and Khamidkariyev v. Russia, no. 42332/14, §§ 105-09, 26 January 2017).
• EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 14945/03

  [ENG]

  Bearing in mind the six-month requirement laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court considers that it is not competent to examine these complaints (for the same approach see Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, § 159, 3 October 2013, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, (dec.), no. 6847/02, ECHR).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  KHAMRAKULOV v. RUSSIA

  In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or for their unfettered access to detention facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 132-33, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or for their unfettered access to detention facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 132-33, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

  In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or by which they could have unfettered access to detention facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 132-33, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

  GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or for their unfettered access to detention facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 132-33, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  TURGUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  TADZHIBAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 40755/16

  B.T. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 58182/14

  K.I. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  N.K. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 29958/20

  A.Y. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 4662/22

  MOHAMED v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 39707/13

  A.A. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  A.R. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.01.2017 - 56167/16

  H.A. AND H.A. v. NORWAY