Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+5, Art. 13+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 52 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (5)

• internet-law.de (Kurzinformation)

  Polen hat die CIA bei der Verschleppung von Terrorverdächtigen unterstützt und die Menschenrechtskonvention verletzt

• spiegel.de (Pressemeldung, 24.07.2014)

  Illegales CIA-Gefängnis in Polen: Menschrechtsgericht sieht Warschau als Mittäter

• sueddeutsche.de (Pressebericht, 24.07.2014)

  CIA-Geheimgefängnis geduldet: Menschenrechtsgerichtshof straft Polen ab

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Polen muss 100.000 EUR an mutmaßliche al-Qaida-Terroristen zahlen

• taz.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 04.12.2013)

  Polen als Handlanger der CIA

Besprechungen u.ä. (4)

• sueddeutsche.de (Pressekommentar, 24.07.2014)

  CIA-Gefängnis in Polen: Folter mit Folgen

• taz.de (Pressekommentar, 25.07.2014)

  Urteil zu CIA-Gefängnissen: Europa ist kein Hinterhof

• juwiss.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  Polen vor dem EGMR: Komplize im ‘extraordinary rendition programme’ der CIA

• taz.de (Pressekommentar zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 04.12.2013)

  US-Geheimgefängnisse In Polen: Die schwarzen Löcher Europas

Sonstiges (3)

• zeit.de (Meldung mit Bezug zur Entscheidung, 18.05.2015)

  Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 3+13, Art. 5, Art. 5+13, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 8+13, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

• Telepolis (Meldung mit Bezug zur Entscheidung, 26.07.2014)

  CIA-Gefängnis: Polen will Straßburger Urteil nicht akzeptieren

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (27)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  In particular, in a case where the application raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999 IV; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 200, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see Imakayeva, cited above, no. 7615/02, § 113, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see El-Masri, cited above, § 152; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, §§ 114-115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  The Court observes at the outset that, in contrast to many other previous cases before it involving complaints about torture, ill-treatment in custody or unlawful detention, in the present case it is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant (for example, compare and contrast with El-Masri, §§ 16-36 and 156-167; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 13-24, ECHR 1999-V; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 16-18, ECHR 2006-IX; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 188-211, ECHR 2004-VII).

  The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  The Court observes at the outset that, in contrast to many other previous cases before it involving complaints about torture, ill-treatment in custody or unlawful detention, in the present case it is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant (for example, compare and contrast with El-Masri, §§ 16-36 and 156-167; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 13-24, ECHR 1999-V; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 16-18, ECHR 2006-IX; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 188-211, ECHR 2004-VII).

  Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see, among many other examples, Soering, cited above, § 88; Selmouni, cited above, no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV); Ilascu and Others cited above, § 424; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 375 and El-Masri, cited above, § 195; see also Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 26-31, ECHR 2001-XI).

• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 96, 18 December 2012; and El-Masri, cited above, § 154).

  2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 97, 18 December 2012).

• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 5432/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  That being so, the Court considers that it should be joined to the merits of that complaint and examined at a later stage (see, mutatis mutandis, Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, §§ 72 and 80, 12 October 2006; and Kadirova and Others v. Russia, no. 5432/07, §§ 75-76, 27 March 2012).

  While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence, if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the Court to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred, strong inferences can be drawn (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 184, ECHR 2009, with further references; Kadirova and Others v. Russia, no. 5432/07, § 94, 27 March 2012; and Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 27251/03

  SHAKHGIRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  Although the structure of the Court's judgments traditionally reflects the numbering of the Articles of the Convention, it has also been customary for the Court to examine the Government's compliance with their procedural obligation under Article 38 of the Convention at the outset, especially if negative inferences are likely to be drawn from the Government's failure to submit the requested evidence (see, among other cases, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 209, ECHR 2013-...; Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 134-140, 8 January 2009; Utsayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 29133/03, §§ 149-153, 29 May 2008; Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, §§ 74-77, 10 January 2008; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, §§ 73-77, 29 November 2007).

  The respondent Government cannot refuse to comply with the Court's evidential request by relying on their national laws or the alleged lack of sufficient safeguards in the Court's procedure guaranteeing the confidentiality of documents or imposing sanctions for a breach of confidentiality (see Nolan and K. cited above; Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 136-140, 8 January 2009; and Janowiec and Others, cited above §§ 210-211).

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  A person should not be treated in a way that causes a loss of dignity, as "the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom" (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, §§ 61 and 65, ECHR 2002 III).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  According to the Court's settled case-law, removal of an applicant from the territory of a respondent State may engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention if this action has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to a foreseeable violation of his Convention rights in the country of his destination (see, among many other examples, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91 and 113; Series A no. 161; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2005-I with further references; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 125, ECHR 2008; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 149, ECHR 2010; Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 61498/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  According to the Court's settled case-law, removal of an applicant from the territory of a respondent State may engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention if this action has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to a foreseeable violation of his Convention rights in the country of his destination (see, among many other examples, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91 and 113; Series A no. 161; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2005-I with further references; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 125, ECHR 2008; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 149, ECHR 2010; Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Briten dürfen Hassprediger an USA ausliefern
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01

  ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 29133/03

  UTSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  TANGIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 11949/08

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 26374/18

  GUDMUNDUR ANDR ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND

  In that context, the term refers to a trial "which is manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein" (see Ahorugeze v. Sweden, no. 37075/09, § 114, 27 October 2011; Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 259, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Al Nashiri v Poland, no. 28761/11, § 562, 24 July 2014; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 552, 24 July 2014; and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 62, 15 June 2017).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.06.2018 - C-216/18

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev ist die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen …

  {FN:60} EGMR, 17. Januar 2012, 0thman (Abu Qatada) gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD000813909, § 263 bis 287), EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD000751113, § 559), EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Al Nashiri gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002876111, § 565 bis 569), und EGMR, 31. Mai 2018, Al Nashiri gegen Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2018:0531JUD003323412, § 719 bis 722).
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 46454/11

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  The facts as established in various international investigations and by the Court in Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (no. 7511/13, 24 July 2014), had revealed the shocking scale of that Programme.

  Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, 24 July 2014.

• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 9993/24

  A.C.M.U. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  That being so, the Court considers that it should be joined to the merits of that complaint (see, mutatis mutandis, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 337, 24 July 2014, and Estamirov v. Russia, no. 27365/07, §§ 78-79, 17 April 2012).
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, 24 July 2014.
• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  À ce jour, la Cour n'a jamais jugé établi qu'une extradition serait contraire à l'article 6 (par opposition à une expulsion comme dans l'affaire Othman (Abu Qatada) (arrêt précité, § 285), et à des remises de prisonniers comme dans les affaires Al Nashiri c. Pologne (no 28761/11, § 568, 24 juillet 2014) et Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) c. Pologne (no 7511/13, § 560, 24 juillet 2014)).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 8138/16

  Bulgarien, minderjährig, Haftbedingungen, Rechtswegerschöpfung, Schadensersatz, …

  These points reflect the well-established principle of international law that international courts are not bound by domestic evidentiary rules (see, in relation specifically to the Court, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 23, 24 July 2014, and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 21, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 11.12.2025 - 13186/20

  Gewaltsame Auflösung der georgischen Proteste: Polizeieinsatz war unmenschliche …

  Les principes pertinents ont été énoncés dans les arrêts Janowiec et autres (précité, §§ 202-206), Al Nashiri c. Pologne (no 28761/11, §§ 360-366, 24 juillet 2014) et Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) c. Pologne (no 7511/13, §§ 352-358, 24 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 07.07.2026 - 31908/22

  AL-NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA

  It is to be noted that in the present case involving, as several previous similar applications before the Court, complaints of secret detention, torture and ill-treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during the extraordinary rendition operations by the United States authorities (see paragraphs 10 et seq. below) the Court is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant (see Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 397, 24 July 2014; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 397, 24 July 2014; Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, §§ 16-17, 31 May 2018; Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, no. 46454/11, §§ 16-17, 31 May 2018; and Al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania, no. 6383/17, § 5, 16 January 2024).
• EGMR, 30.09.2014 - 51284/09

  GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court further notes that, while victims should be able to participate effectively in the investigation (see Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 480, 24 July 2014; Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 167), the applicants were not involved during the inquiry because they could only effectively participate once a full investigation had been opened and legal rights had been granted to them (see paragraph 39 above).
• EGMR, 19.01.2023 - 32245/19

  MACHALIKASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 22790/19

  DENYSYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

  TETYANA GAVRYLOVA AND DENYS GAVRYLOV v. UKRAINEand 4 other applications
• EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 21325/19

  Y.F.C. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11

  MICU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 39503/17

  MUKHTARLI v. AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 49111/08

  WIESMAN v. THE NETHERLANDS