Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.A. v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  A.A. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06

  RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the Article 5 complaint lodged by the applicant later in the proceedings does not constitute a mere elaboration on his original complaints to the Court, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with this newly raised matter in the present case (see, in identical circumstances, M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, nos. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 60, 21 November 2017, and Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, §§ 69-70, 6 December 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  DOBROV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  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).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  BAKOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  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).

 
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  TUKHTAMURODOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  The Court reiterates that, in principle, a successful application for temporary asylum would be capable of suspending the enforcement of administrative removal (see S.K. v. Russia, cited above, § 94, and Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  Other relevant domestic law and practice relating to the expulsion and detention of foreign nationals in Russia, refugee status, and temporary asylum, and the situation of Syrian nationals in the country, is summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of L.M. and Others v. Russia (nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, §§ 61-75, 15 October 2015), and S.K. v. Russia (no. 52722/15, §§ 23-41, 14 February 2017).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  It appears that the above-mentioned decisions of 3 and 7 February 2017 remain in effect at present, and the initial removal order can no longer be executed (contrast Allanazarova, cited above, § 60, and Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, § 49, 15 October 2015).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  The Court notes, however, that temporary asylum in this case was granted mainly with reference to the application of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Allanazarova v. Russia, no. 46721/15, § 59, 14 February 2017).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  Other relevant domestic law and practice relating to the expulsion and detention of foreign nationals in Russia, refugee status, and temporary asylum, and the situation of Syrian nationals in the country, is summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of L.M. and Others v. Russia (nos. 40081/14 and 2 others, §§ 61-75, 15 October 2015), and S.K. v. Russia (no. 52722/15, §§ 23-41, 14 February 2017).
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  M.S.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the Article 5 complaint lodged by the applicant later in the proceedings does not constitute a mere elaboration on his original complaints to the Court, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with this newly raised matter in the present case (see, in identical circumstances, M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, nos. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 60, 21 November 2017, and Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, §§ 69-70, 6 December 2011, with further references).