Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.K. v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Democratic Republic of the Congo);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  R.K. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 49-57 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  The assessment must focus on the foreseeable consequences of the applicant's removal to the country of destination, in the light of the general situation there and of his or her personal circumstances (see, for example, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, §§ 107 and 108, Series A no. 215; and F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, § 115).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  The assessment must focus on the foreseeable consequences of the applicant's removal to the country of destination, in the light of the general situation there and of his or her personal circumstances (see, for example, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, §§ 107 and 108, Series A no. 215; and F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, § 115).

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Lastly, in so far as access by K.J. to periodic judicial review of his continued detention is concerned, the Court has already found that foreign nationals who have been detained in Russia pending their expulsion are not able to have the reasons and lawfulness of their detention reviewed by the domestic courts (see, among other authorities, L.M. and Others v Russia, cited above, §§ 141-42, and R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 12120/20

  A.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court finds that it is more appropriate to deal with the complaint under Article 2 in the context of its examination of the applicants' related complaint under Article 3 and will proceed on this basis (see N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 95, 17 July 2008, and R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, § 36, 8 October 2019).