Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  In determining whether substantial grounds have been shown for believing that there is a real risk of treatment incompatible with Article 3, the Court will take as its basis all the material placed before it or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu (see H.L.R. v. France, cited above, § 37, and Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  At the same time, it has held that 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) and that, where the sources available to it describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I; Müslim, cited above, § 68; and Saadi, cited above, § 131).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 33394/96

  PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  According to the Court's settled case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, 11 July 2006).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2001 - 54273/00

  BOULTIF v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  However, the removal of a person from a country where close members of his family are living may amount to an infringement of the right to respect for family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Boultif v. Switzerland, no. 54273/00, § 39, ECHR 2001-IX).
• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  According to the Court's settled case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  According to the Court's settled case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see, among other authorities, Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, § 24, ECHR 2001-VII; Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 37, ECHR 2002-IX; and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, 11 July 2006).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no. 161; Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 103; Ahmed, cited above, § 39; H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-III; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 38, ECHR 2000-VIII; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007; and Saadi, cited above, § 125).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  To that end, as regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court has often attached 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, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  It is the Court's settled case-law that as a matter of well-established international law, and subject to their treaty obligations, including those arising from the Convention, Contracting States have the right to control the entry, residence and removal of aliens (see, among many other authorities, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94, and Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20113/07

  However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no. 161; Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 103; Ahmed, cited above, § 39; H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-III; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 38, ECHR 2000-VIII; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007; and Saadi, cited above, § 125).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

• EGMR, 04.10.2011 - 47729/08

  GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  That being said, the Court, having due regard to the fact that the most fundamental values - the applicant's health, well-being and life - are at stake in the present case, does not consider that it would be reasonable or compatible with the humanitarian considerations which are compelling for a proper examination of complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2004-XII; N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, § 43, 27 May 2008; and Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, § 94, 4 December 2008) to find that the fact that a better domestic remedy has been introduced subsequent to the introduction of the present application should render the applicant's complaint of lack of adequate medical care in prison inadmissible under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in its entirety (compare, a contrario, with a number of cases raising various merely pecuniary interests, where domestic remedies were set up after the introduction, as a result of the Court's instructions to that end in its "pilot" judgments, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 140-149, ECHR 2006-V; Icyer v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18888/02, §§ 73-87, 12 January 2006; but also contrast with Merit v. Ukraine, no. 66561/01, §§ 65-66, 30 March 2004).