Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DZHAKSYBERGENOV (AKA JAXYBERGENOV) v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
  Violation de P4-2 No violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Kazakhstan) No violation of Art. 6 (in case of extradition to Kazakhstan) Remainder inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  With regard to the lawfulness of the measure, the Court reiterates its settled case-law according to which the expression "in accordance with law" not only requires that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law, but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  Furthermore, in assessing such a risk, the Court assesses the situation in its development, taking into account the indications of improvement or worsening of the human rights situation in general or in respect of a particular group or area that might be relevant to the applicant's situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 337, ECHR 2005-III).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  They referred to the Court's case-law in which such personal circumstances had been successfully advanced by the applicants in support of their allegations (Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 64, 10 December 2009, and Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 81, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts)), as well as to the Court's case-law in which a lack of substantiation led to the rejection of similar complaints (Puzan v. Ukraine, no. 51243/08, § 34, 18 February 2010, and Bordovskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 49491/99, 11 May 2004).

 
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  KOKTYSH v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  They referred to the Court's case-law in which such personal circumstances had been successfully advanced by the applicants in support of their allegations (Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 64, 10 December 2009, and Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 81, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts)), as well as to the Court's case-law in which a lack of substantiation led to the rejection of similar complaints (Puzan v. Ukraine, no. 51243/08, § 34, 18 February 2010, and Bordovskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 49491/99, 11 May 2004).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  The Court observes that in Soering (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 113, Series A no. 161) it held:.
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  BAUMANN v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  Any measure restricting that right must be lawful, pursue one of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of the provision and strike a fair balance between the public interest and the individual's rights (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 61, ECHR 2001-V, and Riener v. Bulgaria, no. 46343/99, § 109, 23 May 2006).

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.06.2018 - C-216/18

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev ist die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen …

  Vgl. auch EGMR, 10. Februar 2011, Dzhaksybergenov gegen Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2011:0210JUD001234310, § 37 und 44).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  At the same time, reference to a general problem concerning human rights observance in a particular country cannot alone serve as a basis for refusal of extradition (see Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine, no. 12343/10, § 37, 10 February 2011).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.10.2012 - C-396/11

  Radu - Polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen - …

  41 - Urteil des EGMR vom 10. Februar 2011 (Beschwerde Nr. 12343/10, Ziff. 37).

 
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Reference to a general problem concerning human rights observance in a particular country cannot alone serve as a basis for refusal of extradition (see Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine, no. 12343/10, § 37, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  KHASANOV ET RAKHMANOV c. RUSSIE

  Dans certains arrêts de chambre, la Cour était appelée à rechercher si, oui ou non, la situation générale dans le pays de destination, en ce qui concerne le risque de mauvais traitements, s'était améliorée depuis qu'elle avait rendu ses arrêts antérieurs dans lesquels elle avait jugé établie l'existence d'un risque (voir, par exemple, A.M. c. France, no 12148/18, §§ 120-126, 29 avril 2019, X c. Suède, no 36417/16, §§ 26-31, 52, 9 janvier 2018, et Dzhaksybergenov c. Ukraine, no 12343/10, § 37 10 février 2011).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  En effet, des informations générales sur la situation déplorable en matière de droits de l'homme au Tadjikistan ne suffisent pas à elles seules pour justifier l'interdiction de toute extradition vers ce pays (Dzhaksybergenov c. Ukraine, no 12343/10, § 37, 10 février 2011).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 35661/11

  PEREZ LIZASO v. FINLAND

  Reference to a general problem concerning human rights observance in a particular country cannot alone serve as a basis for refusal of extradition (see Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine, no. 12343/10, § 37, 10 February 2011).
• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 55091/13

  MUSAYEV v. RUSSIA

  While being concerned with these reports, and most notably with the findings of the successive Commissioners for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the Court nevertheless reiterates its well-established opinion that reference to a general problem concerning human-rights observance in a particular country cannot alone serve as a basis for refusal of extradition (see Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine, no. 12343/10, § 37, 10 February 2011).