Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,63466
EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,63466)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.02.2010 - 51243/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,63466)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. Februar 2010 - 51243/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,63466)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63466) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    PUZAN v. UKRAINE

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

    TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 24490/94

    SARLI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

    KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    At the same time, it has held that 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) and that, where the sources available to it describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I).
  • EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

    ORHAN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    The Court also underlines that the undertaking not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual application precludes any interference with the individual's right to present and pursue his complaint before the Court effectively (see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, § 105; Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 159; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV; Sarlı v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002).
  • EGMR, 09.07.2002 - 46468/99

    MANOUSSOS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND GERMANY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    While the obligation imposed is of a procedural nature, distinguishable from the substantive rights set out in the Convention and Protocols, it flows from the very essence of this procedural right that it is open to individuals to complain of its alleged infringement in Convention proceedings (see Manoussos v. the Czech Republic and Germany (dec.), no. 46468/99, 9 July 2002).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

    Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    To that end, as regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court has often attached 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 v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, §§ 99-100; Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, 5 July 2005; Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007; and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 143-146, 28 February 2008).
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    The Court, having found the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention inadmissible, concludes that he has no arguable claims for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    In cases such as the present the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of sending the applicant to the receiving country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, § 108 in fine).
  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 51243/08
    The Court reiterates the exceptional nature of the application of the "victim" notion in extradition cases as formulated in the case of Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, § 90, Series A no. 161):.
  • EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

    LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

    Se référant à l'arrêt Puzan c. Ukraine (no 51243/08, 18 février 2010), le Gouvernement souligne qu'une simple possibilité de mauvais traitements en raison d'une conjoncture instable dans un pays n'entraîne pas en soi une violation de l'article 3. En outre, le Gouvernement affirme que l'allégation de risque de mauvais traitements a été soigneusement examinée, à la fois par le Service fédéral des migrations et par les tribunaux, qui sont arrivés à la conclusion unanime qu'elle était sans fondement.
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