Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YEFIMOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Kazakhstan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) No ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Yefimova v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  In view of the above, the Court concludes that from 3 July to 18 November 2009 the applicant was kept in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing her situation, which is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 59, 15 January 2009, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  Although the number of days taken by the relevant proceedings is obviously an important element, it is not necessarily in itself decisive for the question of whether a decision has been given with the requisite speed (see Merie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 664/05, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  In view of the above, the Court concludes that from 3 July to 18 November 2009 the applicant was kept in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing her situation, which is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 59, 15 January 2009, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III).

 
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  Accordingly, it considers that the issue of speediness of review in the present case closely overlaps with the issue of its effectiveness (see Eminbeyli v. Russia, no. 42443/02, § 68, 26 February 2009).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  It is essential that the person concerned should have access to court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see, among others, Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 66, 4 July 2000, and Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A, concerning detention in the context of paragraph 1 (c) and (e) of Article 5, respectively).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 26853/04

  POPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  The Court reiterates that, in accordance with its established case-law, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2006 - 59696/00

  KHUDOBIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  Although it has been the Court's consistent approach that Article 3 cannot be construed as laying down a general obligation to release detainees on health grounds, it has always interpreted the requirement to secure their health and well-being, among other things, as an obligation on the part of the State to provide them with the requisite medical assistance (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX; Kudla, cited above, § 94; and Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, § 93, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  As regards the applicant's transfer from the prison hospital to the remand prison on 26 August 2009, the Court observes that it found a violation of Article 3 in a case where a postoperative patient was transported in a standard prison van in unsuitable conditions (see Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 112-17, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  Since the nature of the Contracting States" responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.06.2018 - C-216/18

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev ist die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen …

  83 EGMR, 27. Oktober 2011, Ahorugeze gegen Schweden (CE:ECHR:2011:1027JUD003707509, § 116), EGMR, 17. Januar 2012, 0thman (Abu Qatada) gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD000813909, § 261), und EGMR, 19. Februar 2013, Yefimova gegen Russland (CE:ECHR:2013:0219JUD003978609, § 220).

  86 EGMR, 19. Februar 2013, Yefimova gegen Russland (CE:ECHR:2013:0219JUD003978609, § 221 bis 225).

• EGMR, 22.06.2021 - 35751/20

  BAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Nonetheless, it is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation (see, mutatis mutandis, Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, § 56, ECHR 2002-I, and Stanev, cited above, § 171; see also, in the context of detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, albeit concerning detention with a view to extradition, Yefimova v. Russia, no. 39786/09, § 283, 19 February 2013).