Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZHAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Belarus) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-f - Extradition) No violation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02

  SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection 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, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  It does not appear that, under Russian law, a detainee could continue to be held in detention once an authorised detention period had expired, or that any exceptions to that rule were permitted or provided for, no matter how short the duration of the detention (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 149, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  BLECIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  Before dealing with the substance of the applicant's complaint, the Court reiterates 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, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection 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, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  It finds that the same consideration must apply, a fortiori, in respect of agencies of the United Nations, particularly given their direct access to the authorities of the country of destination as well as their ability to carry out on-site inspections and assessments in a manner which States and non-governmental organisations may not be able to do (see NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 121, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  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, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  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, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  In so far as any responsibility under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is responsibility incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 67, ECHR 2005-I, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161).

• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  La déclaration du Gouvernement selon laquelle les autorités tadjikes n'ont jamais manqué à se conformer à leurs assurances (voir le paragraphe 77 ci-dessus) ne convainc pas la Cour (voir Kozhayev c. Russie, no 60045/10, § 84, 5 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 31478/17

  PROKOPYEV v. RUSSIA

  The starting point for the calculation is the date of the relevant appeal decision or, if the detention was not covered by any judicial order, the date on which the alleged continuous violation of the right to liberty ceased to exist (see Strelets v. Russia, no. 28018/05, § 67, 6 November 2012; Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, § 102, 5 June 2012; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, § 107, 25 June 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 73, 3 July 2008; and Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, § 71, 24 May 2007).