Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHANKAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Russia) Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Extradition) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Chankayev v. Azerbaijan

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

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 95, Reports 1996-VI; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 288, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

  In determining whether it has been shown that the applicant runs a real risk, if extradited, of suffering treatment proscribed by Article 3, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it, or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 75, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

  In cases such as the present, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of the applicant being extradited to the requesting country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 108 in fine, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  GARAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

  However, the Court notes that, despite the fact that the applicant had explicitly complained before the Sabayil District Court and the Baku Court of Appeal of the risk of torture or ill-treatment and that his allegations in this regard were arguable, the domestic courts ignored his arguments and their decisions were silent in this regard (compare Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 84, 10 June 2010).

• EGMR, 23.09.2014 - 55091/13

  MUSAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Turning to the present case, the Court observes from the outset that the case concerns extradition between two High Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, which have undertaken to secure the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Convention (see Chankayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 56688/12, § 80, 14 November 2013, with further references).