Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bakoyev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  The Court reiterates that an issue might exceptionally arise under Article 6 of the Convention by an expulsion or extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive had suffered or risked suffering a flagrant denial of justice in the requesting country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 113, Series A no. 161; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2005-I; and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 149, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  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, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  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, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  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 bodies and organisations, or governmental sources (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, ECHR 2005-VI; and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  During that time the extradition proceedings, although temporarily suspended pursuant to the request made by the Court, were nevertheless in progress for the purpose of Article 5 § 1 (f) (see, for similar reasoning, Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 73 and 74, ECHR 2007-II; Al Hanchi, cited above, § 51; and Al Husin, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  The Court reiterates at the outset that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  This is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 59, 15 January 2009, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 12572/08

  S.P. c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  The Court has previously found that the fact that expulsion or extradition 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, and on condition that the detention is not unreasonably prolonged (see Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 22426/10, § 34, 17 January 2012, and S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 48205/09

  AL HANCHI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  In accordance with the Court's well-established case-law, this latter period of the applicant's detention should be distinguished from the earlier period (see Chahal, cited above, § 114; Al Hanchi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 48205/09, §§ 49-51, 15 November 2011; and Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 3727/08, §§ 67-69, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 22426/10

  KESHMIRI v. TURKEY (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  The Court has previously found that the fact that expulsion or extradition 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, and on condition that the detention is not unreasonably prolonged (see Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 22426/10, § 34, 17 January 2012, and S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 16473/19

  F.T. AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The above findings do not prevent the applicants from lodging new applications before the Court and making use of the available procedures, including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  A.A. v. RUSSIA

  The above findings do not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application with the Court and making use of the available procedures â?? including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court â?? in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Tukhtamurodov, cited above, § 41; Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011; and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).