Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAFAII v. AUSTRIA

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

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  [DEU] 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)

  Safaii v. Austria

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  However, Article 13 does not require any particular form of remedy (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 122, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 60104/08

  SHARIFI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  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).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  In accordance with the Court's case-law (see Fatgan Katani and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 67679/01, ECHR 31 May 2001, and, mutatis mutandis, Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 40, ECHR 2000-X), it follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

 
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  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, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  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, 18.02.1999 - 26083/94

  WAITE AND KENNEDY v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  Furthermore, the Court has held 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, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  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, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  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, 02.12.2008 - 32733/08

  Dublin II-VO, Dublinverfahren, Griechenland, Großbritannien, Refoulement, Iran, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  Furthermore, the Government referred to the Court's decision in K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom ((dec), no. 32733/08, 2 December 2008).
• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 15974/11

  EBRAHIMI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 44689/09

  In the case of Ebrahami v. Austria ((dec.), no. 15974/11, 1 October 2013) the same counsel as in the present case did not submit any power of attorney to the Court at all.
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 10449/08

  CETIN v. TURKEY