Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 59727/13

  It creates, over and above a network of mutual, bilateral undertakings, objective obligations which, in the words of the Preamble, benefit from a "collective enforcement" (see, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), judgment of 23 March 1995, Series A no. 310, p. 26, § 70).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 59727/13

  In addition, any interpretation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed has to be consistent with "the general spirit of the Convention, an instrument designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society" (see Soering, cited above, p. 34, § 87, and, mutatis mutandis, Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 18, § 34).
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 24340/08

  Abschiebungshaft, Malta, Rechtsweggarantie, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 59727/13

  In asking whether "action is being taken with a view to deportation", this Court has found that removal must be a realistic prospect (Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 69, 27 July 2010, A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 167, ECHR 2009, Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 144, 12 February 2013 and Mikolenko, cited above, § 68).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA

  Also referring to the requirements of the Convention, the domestic courts applied less restrictive preventive measures pursuant to the CCP, namely house arrest and, later, namely on 19 November and 9 December 2021 respectively, ordered the applicants' release and placement under judicial supervision, holding that their detention with a view to surrender, which had lasted approximately nine months for each of them, was no longer justified in the light of their individual circumstances and from the specific perspective of surrender (see paragraphs 40-41 and 48-49 above; compare, inter alia, Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 3727/08, §§ 67-69, 7 February 2012; Umirov v. Russia, no. 17455/11, §§ 136 et seq., 18 September 2012; and Ahmed v. the United Kingdom, no. 59727/13, §§ 41 et seq., 2 March 2017).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  The overall period of the applicant's detention, which lasted approximately six and a half months, does not therefore appear excessive (compare, among other authorities, S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011; Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 3727/08, §§ 67-69, 7 February 2012; Umirov v. Russia, no. 17455/11, §§ 136 et seq., 18 September 2012; and Ahmed v. the United Kingdom, no. 59727/13, §§ 41 et seq., 2 March 2017).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that the fact that expulsion proceedings are provisionally suspended as a result of the application of an interim measure does not in itself render the detention of the person concerned unlawful, provided that the authorities still envisage expulsion at a later stage, so that "action is being taken" even though the proceedings are suspended, on condition that the detention will not be unreasonably prolonged (see Ahmed v. the United Kingdom, no. 59727/13, § 44, 2 March 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 59609/17

  B.U. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  A detention period subject to review at regular intervals, as long as expulsion remains a realistic possibility, might be reasonable given the authorities" decisions to maintain that detention awaiting the outcome of this Court's judgment (see Ahmed v. the United Kingdom, no. 59727/13, §§ 45-59, 2 March 2017).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 61689/16

  A.N. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  A detention period subject to review at regular intervals, as long as expulsion remains a realistic possibility, might be reasonable given the authorities" decisions to maintain that detention awaiting the outcome of this Court's judgment (see Ahmed v. the United Kingdom, no. 59727/13, §§ 45-59, 2 March 2017).