Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLEIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 (in case of extradition to Colombia) Just satisfaction - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  The Court does not have valid reasons to foresee with any degree of certainty that Colombia would fail to comply with its obligations arising from international law (see, mutatis mutandis, Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, § 33, ECHR 2001-XI).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicating on or establishing the responsibility of the receiving country, whether under general international law, under the Convention or otherwise (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161).

 
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  Since the nature of the Contracting States' responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  Since the nature of the Contracting States' responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  Reiterating that in cases concerning aliens facing expulsion or extradition the Court is entitled to compare materials made available by the Government with materials from other reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 131, 28 February 2008), it observes that in 2009 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.S. Department of State reported a considerable number of human rights violations that have recently taken place in Colombia (see paragraphs 33-35 above).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach certain importance to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human-rights-protection associations such as Amnesty International, or governmental sources, including the US State Department (see, for example, Chahal, cited above, §§ 99-100, Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005, Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, 5 July 2005, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  The Court reiterates that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nielsen and Johnson v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 63758/00

  ANIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  In such circumstances the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to make a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI; and Anık and Others v. Turkey, no. 63758/00, § 86, 5 June 2007).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  At the same time, the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of an unsettled situation in the receiving country does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3 (see Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 111, and Fatgan Katani and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 67679/01, 31 May 2001).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  SHAIPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  [8] no 24268/08, 1er avril 2010.
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN v. AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY

  Relying on the UNHCR Note on Diplomatic Assurances and the Court's case-law (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161; Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 54131/08, § 51, 18 February 2010; Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, §§ 55-56, 1 April 2010; and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 147, ECHR 2008), the Armenian Government argued that the assurances received by the Hungarian authorities from Azerbaijan had been insufficient.
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 59297/12

  M.G. c. BULGARIE

  Compte tenu des circonstances spécifiques de l'espèce, la Cour considère que le constat que la mise à exécution de la décision d'extradition constituerait une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention représente une satisfaction équitable suffisante pour le dommage moral subi par le requérant (Saadi, précité, § 188, et Klein c. Russie, no 24268/08, § 72, 1er avril 2010).