Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Substantive aspect) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 30227/18

  The relevant general principles concerning the application of Article 3 have been summarised recently by the Court in the judgment in the case of F.G. v. Sweden, [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-27, ECHR 2016, and in the context of removals from Russia to Central Asian states in Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, §§ 127-37, 23 October 2014.

  The Russian authorities were therefore presented with evidence capable of proving that the applicant belonged to a vulnerable group of persons who were systematically exposed to a practice of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and whose removal would expose them to a real risk of such ill-treatment (Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, § 140, 23 October 2014 and follow-up cases of N.M. v. Russia [Committee], no. 29343/18, 3 December 2019; S.S. and others v. Russia [Committee], no. 2236/16, 25 June 2019; B.U. and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 59609/17, 22 January 2019; T.M. and others v. Russia [Committee], no. 31189/15, 7 November 2017).

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 30227/18

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and, particularly, its findings under Articles 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 48-51 and 58-61 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention under either of the heads in the present case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and, in a similar context, O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, § 64, 21 May 2019).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  O.O. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 30227/18

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and, particularly, its findings under Articles 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 48-51 and 58-61 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention under either of the heads in the present case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and, in a similar context, O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, § 64, 21 May 2019).

• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 42874/18

  BURIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Taking into account lack of proper notification of the deportation order, and haste with which his deportation was carried out, the applicant also did not have any meaningful opportunity to have the domestic courts review his case in the context of deportation proceedings (see, for similar issue in context of deportation to Uzbekistan, Yusupov v. Russia [Committee], no. 30227/18, §§ 48-51, 1 December 2020).