Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,55649
EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11 (https://dejure.org/2012,55649)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.10.2012 - 50031/11 (https://dejure.org/2012,55649)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Oktober 2012 - 50031/11 (https://dejure.org/2012,55649)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55649) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges (2)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

    HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11
    The fact that the correspondence delivery system between the courts did not function effectively cannot serve to justify the deprivation of the applicant of his rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention: it is for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its courts to comply with the requirements of that provision (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 78, ECHR 2003-IV).
  • EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

    TOSHEV v. BULGARIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11
    It is in the first place for the national authorities, and notably the courts, to interpret domestic law, and in particular, rules of a procedural nature (see Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, § 58, 10 August 2006).
  • EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

    HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11
    In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 48, Series A no. 24).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11
    At the same time, 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, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11
    At the same time, 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, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

    Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 50031/11
    Quality in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty, it must be sufficiently accessible and precise, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see, among others, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 55, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 13.12.2016 - 27297/07

    KOLOMENSKIY c. RUSSIE

    La Cour note cependant que la Cour constitutionnelle de la Fédération de Russie exige aux juridictions ordinaires de préciser explicitement la durée pour laquelle elles appliquent la mesure en question (Rakhmonov c. Russie, no 50031/11, §§ 30 et 53, 16 octobre 2012).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 33024/19

    FIRTASH v. AUSTRIA

    It follows that the applicant is currently no longer subject to the risk of extradition to the US and, accordingly, no longer runs the alleged risk of a violation of his Convention rights arising from Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis, Rakhmonov v. Russia, no. 50031/11, §§ 34-35, 16 October 2012, and Nasrulloyev, cited above, §§ 60-61, both in respect of a risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention).
  • EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 16473/19

    F.T. AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

    It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of a deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect, and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 59, 11 October 2007; Rakhmonov v. Russia, no. 50031/11, §§ 34-37, 16 October 2012; and Budrevich v. the Czech Republic, no. 65303/10, §§ 64-72, 17 October 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht