Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHODZHAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Tajikistan) Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  In this connection the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should therefore review whether this law has been complied with (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX, and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 47, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  The Court further reiterates that the domestic remedies must be "effective" in the sense either of preventing the alleged violation or its continuation, or of providing adequate redress for any violation that had already occurred (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 158, ECHR-XI).

 
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  In this connection the Court reiterates that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V, and Mifsud v. France (dec.), no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  SHAIPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  Having regard to its above findings (see paragraph 104 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to make a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  At the same time, the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of an unsettled situation in the receiving country does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3 (see Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 111, and Fatgan Katani and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 67679/01, 31 May 2001).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  However, the Court reiterates that in cases concerning aliens facing expulsion or extradition it is entitled to compare materials made available by the Government with materials from other reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 131, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach certain importance to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human-rights-protection associations such as Amnesty International, or governmental sources, including the US State Department (see, for example, Chahal, cited above, §§ 99-100, Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005, Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, 5 July 2005, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  For other relevant documents, see the Court's judgment in the case of Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2007-.
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the Court has already examined cases involving extradition to Tajikistan of persons charged with politically and/or religiously motivated criminal offences (see Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, 20 May 2010; and Gaforov, cited above).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Aux yeux de la cour, les arrêts de la Cour européenne rendus dans les affaires Gaforov (no 25404/09, 21 octobre 2010), Iskandarov (no 17185/05, 23 septembre 2010), et Khodzhayev (no 52466/08, 12 mai 2010) contre la Russie n'avaient constaté que des faits isolés de violation de la loi nationale et de la Convention à l'égard des intéressés, de sorte qu'ils ne pouvaient pas servir de base pour refuser l'extradition de M. Latipov.
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  GAFOROV v. RUSSIA

  It is also noted that in a recent judgment against Russia the Court has found that there were serious reasons to believe in the existence of the practice of persecution of members and supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose underlying aims appear to be both religious and political (see Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 101, 12 May 2010).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The mere fact of ratification of international human rights treaties by Uzbekistan does not in itself provide sufficient safeguards against ill-treatment because of the absence of any control mechanisms in relation to the country's compliance with its commitments (here the applicant referred to the Court's findings in: Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 204, 7 November 2013, and Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 98, 12 May 2010).