Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TEHRANI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Iran or Iraq) Violation of Art. 13+3 No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08

  (See Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08

  (See Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 102, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08

  While under Article 34 of the Convention the existence of a "victim of a violation", that is to say, an individual applicant who is personally affected by an alleged violation of a Convention right, is indispensable for putting the protection mechanism of the Convention into motion, this criterion cannot be applied in a rigid, mechanical and inflexible way throughout the whole proceedings Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 25, ECHR 2003-IX. As a rule, and in particular in cases which primarily involve a risk to the applicant's life or physical well-being, the ensuing existence of the applicant's wish to pursue his application cannot be the only criterion.
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 37213/02

  KANTYREV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08

  In its previous cases concerning detention conditions where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 square metres of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 25664/05

  LIND v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.04.2010 - 32940/08

  In its previous cases concerning detention conditions where applicants had at their disposal less than 3 square metres of personal space, the Court found that the overcrowding was so severe as to justify of itself a finding of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, among many others, Lind v. Russia, no. 25664/05, § 59, 6 December; Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 50-51, 21 June 2007; Labzov v. Russia, no. 62208/00, § 44, 16 June 2005).

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  In these circumstances, legitimate doubts may arise about the validity of his statement (see, mutatis mutandis, Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 56, 13 April 2010).
• EGMR, 31.01.2012 - 50012/08

  M.S. c. BELGIQUE

  Dès lors qu'il n'a pas choisi délibérément de retourner en Irak, le requérant soutient que la conclusion à laquelle la Cour est parvenue dans l'affaire Tehrani et autres c. Turquie (nos 32940/08, 41626/08 et 43616/08, §§ 56 et 57, 13 avril 2010) doit s'appliquer en l'espèce et que le bien-fondé de cette partie de la requête doit être examiné.
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 30518/11

  ALIEV v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that it has found a violation of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention in the past in a number of similar cases, where it concluded that the Turkish legal system did not provide people in the applicant's position with a remedy whereby they could obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention, within the meaning of Article 5 § 4, and be awarded compensation for their unlawful detention as required under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 142; Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 79, 13 April 2010; and Dbouba v. Turkey, no. 15916/09, §§ 53-54, 13 July 2010).

 
• EGMR, 14.01.2014 - 49335/07

  MARKOVIC v. SERBIA

  32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, §§ 55-7).
• EGMR, 20.10.2010 - 9926/03

  RF SPOL. S R.O. v. SLOVAKIA

  In the light of the above considerations the Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of RFSRO (for contrast see, for example, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003-IX, and Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 56, 13 April 2010).
• EGMR, 26.09.2017 - 39070/11

  SPALLDI D.O.O. v. CROATIA

  In the light of the above considerations the Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application (for contrast see, for example, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003-IX, and Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 56, 13 April 2010).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 20647/08

  INTERTRANS, ZAT v. UKRAINE

  In the light of the fact that the claim was pecuniary in nature and that it is a subject of a well-established case law (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine cited above) the Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the applicant (for contrast see, for example, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003-IX, and Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 56, 13 April 2010).
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 41096/07

  KAPITALNYY REMONT SVERDLOVYN v. UKRAINE

  In the light of the fact that the claim was pecuniary in nature and that it is a subject of a well-established case law (see Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine cited above) the Court finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require it to continue the examination of the application in respect of the applicant (for contrast see, for example, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 27, ECHR 2003-IX, and Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, nos. 32940/08, 41626/08 and 43616/08, § 56, 13 April 2010).