Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  As regards the legal fees, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 6, 100, plus any tax which may be chargeable to the applicants on that amount, to be paid to the representatives" bank account.
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 116, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  Long intervals in the context of automatic periodic review may give rise to a violation of Article 5 § 4 (see, among other authorities, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 77, Series A no. 244).

• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  It is noteworthy that in a number of previous cases against Russia, the Court has already accepted that proceedings for the extension of detention pending extradition before a first-instance court amounted to a form of periodic review of a judicial nature (see, for instance, Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 109-10, 5 June 2012; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 176, 3 July 2012; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 153, 16 October 2012; and Sidikovy v. Russia, no. 73455/11, §§ 182-83, 20 June 2013).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  It will therefore assess whether the applicants face a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of their extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  This is not reconcilable with the requirement of "speediness" as set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Yefimova v. Russia, no. 39786/09, § 292, 19 February 2013).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  The Court will examine the merits of this part of the applicants" complaints under Article 3 in the light of the applicable general principles reiterated in, among other cases, Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, §§ 92-100, 18 September 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  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, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  SIDIKOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 7997/08

  [ENG]

  42351/13 and 47823/13, § 119, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  LORENZ v. AUSTRIA

  42351/13 and 47823/13, § 119, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

  T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA

  This information addresses the concerns about the effectiveness of that arrangement expressed by the Court in a number of previous judgments (see, for example, Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, §§ 96-97, 17 July 2014, and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 69, 16 April 2015).

  42351/13 and 47823/13, 17 July 2014; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, 17 April 2014; and Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012).

• EGMR, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  Kirgisistan: nicht mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit drohende …

  118. The Court notes that between 2012 and 2016 it considered nine cases concerning extraditions of ethnic Uzbeks from Russia to Kyrgyzstan (see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, 17 April 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, no. 42351/13, 17 July 2014; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, 24 July 2014; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, 15 October 2015; Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, 22 October 2015; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; and R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a toutefois relevé à plusieurs reprises dans des affaires qui concernaient des cas d'extradition que les autorités russes interprètent l'article 1 § 1-1 de la loi sur les réfugiés d'une manière stricte, excluant son application dans le cas d'allégations d'un risque d'être soumis à de mauvais traitements pour des raisons autres que celles qu'il énumère (voir, à titre d'exemples, Turgunov c. Russie, no 15590/14, §§ 20-24, 22 octobre 2015, Khalikov c. Russie, no 66373/13, §§ 21-24, 26 février 2015, Mamazhonov c. Russie, no 17239/13, §§ 42-47, 23 octobre 2014, Mamadaliyev c. Russie, no 5614/13, §§ 29-33, 24 juillet 2014, Kadirzhanov et Mamashev c. Russie, nos 42351/13 et 47823/13, §§ 53, 60 et 63, 17 juillet 2014, Ermakov c. Russie, no 43165/10, §§ 30-42, 7 novembre 2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev, précité, §§ 27-29, Makhmudzhan Ergashev c. Russie, no 49747/11, §§ 20-23 et 28-29, 16 octobre 2012, et Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, §§ 33-39, 2 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that the current overall human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan remains highly problematic (see Gayratbek Saliyev, cited above, § 61; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, § 91, 17 July 2014; and Mamadaliyev, cited above, § 60).
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15
  For a number of relevant reports and further information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46, 16 October 2012), and Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia (nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, §§ 72-77, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  TURGUNOV v. RUSSIA

  In a number of previous cases concerning extradition to Kyrgyzstan it found that the situation in the south of the country was characterised by torture and other ill-treatment of ethnic Uzbeks by law-enforcement officers (see Khamrakulov v. Russia, cited above, § 65; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, § 60, 24 July 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, § 91, 17 July 2014; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, cited above, § 61; and Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, cited above, §§ 71-73).
• EGMR, 25.07.2017 - 48528/09

  YAKOVENKO v. RUSSIA

  It also emphasised that Article 110 did not provide for a clear mechanism of applying for cancellation or varying the preventive measure in the context of detention pending extradition (see Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, § 131-32, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 26.07.2016 - 14348/15

  U.N. v. RUSSIA

  The Government contested the applicant's allegations, arguing that the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan had improved dramatically since 2010, that the Kyrgyz authorities had provided the Government with adequate assurances against the risk of ill-treatment, and finally that the applicant had not submitted convincing evidence that he would risk ill-treatment if extradited to Kyrgyzstan (for more details see Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, §§ 50-52, 17 April 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, §§ 80-83, 17 July 2014; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, §§ 49-56, 16 April 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, §§ 52-53, 15 October 2015; Turgunov, cited above , §§ 38-44, 22 October 2015, and Tadzhibayev, cited above, §§ 29-36, 1 December 2015).