Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHARIFI v. AUSTRIA

  Art. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Greece) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHARIFI v. AUSTRIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Greece)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sharifi v. Austria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  In such circumstances, Article 3 implies an obligation not to remove the individual 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 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 114, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 43844/98

  Dubliner Übereinkommen, Dublinverfahren, Großbritannien, Sri Lanka, sichere …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  In applying the Dublin Regulation, therefore, States must make sure that the intermediary country's asylum procedure affords sufficient guarantees to avoid an asylum-seeker being removed, directly or indirectly, to his country of origin without any evaluation of the risks he faces from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention (see T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III, and K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, both summarised in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, §§ 342).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  Furthermore, the Court has reiterated that where States cooperate in an area where there might be implications for the protection of fundamental rights, it would be incompatible with the purpose and object of the Convention if they were absolved of all responsibility vis-à-vis the Convention in the area concerned (see, among other authorities, Waite and Kennedy v. Germany [GC], no. 26083/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  The Court reiterates that decisions regarding the entry, stay and deportation of aliens do not concern the determination of an applicant's civil rights or obligations or of a criminal charge against him within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 40, ECHR 2000-X, and Katani and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 67679/01, 31 May 2001).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  The Court has previously found that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion 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 of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  In such circumstances, Article 3 implies an obligation not to remove the individual 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 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 114, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  The applicant, relying on the principles established in the judgment in Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215) concerning risk assessment under Article 3, observed that the Court would not be precluded from having regard to information which came to light subsequent to the expulsion.

• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 71932/12

  Ungarn, Dublinverfahren, UNHCR, Dublin II-VO, Dublin III-Verordnung, …

  The Court reiterates at the outset the relevant general principles under Article 3 of the Convention as set out most recently in its decisions on admissibility in the cases of Mohammed Hussein v. the Netherlands and Italy ((dec.), no. 27725/10, §§ 65-71, 2 April 2013) and Daybetgova and Magomedova v.Austria ((dec.) 6198/12, §§ 58-64, 4 June 2013) as well as in its recent judgments of Sharifi v. Austria (no. 60104/08, § 29, 5 December 2013), and Mohammed (cited above, § 92).
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  SAFAII v. AUSTRIA

  Consequently, while the Court considers it established that in spring 2009 the Austrian authorities would have been aware of the serious deficiencies in the Greek asylum procedure and the living and detention conditions for asylum-seekers, it does not find it established that, all circumstances considered, the Austrian authorities ought to have known that those deficiencies had reached the threshold required by Article 3 (see also the case of Sharifi v. Austria, no. 60104/08, § 38, 5 December 2013).