Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1991,15258
EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89 (https://dejure.org/1991,15258)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20.03.1991 - 15576/89 (https://dejure.org/1991,15258)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 20. März 1991 - 15576/89 (https://dejure.org/1991,15258)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1991,15258) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • NJW 1991, 3079
  • NVwZ 1992, 256 (Ls.)
 
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 ... (221)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
    In its Soering judgment of 7 July 1989 the Court held that the decision by a Contracting State to extradite a fugitive may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country (Series A no. 161, p. 35, § 91).

    The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the nature and context of the treatment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical or mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, p. 39, § 100, and the authorities cited therein).

    As has been noted on previous occasions the Convention must be interpreted in the light of its special character as a treaty for the protection of individual human beings and its safeguards must be construed in a manner which makes them practical and effective (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, p. 34, § 87).

    In this respect also the Convention must be interpreted as guaranteeing rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, p. 34, § 87, and the authorities cited therein).

    Subsequent practice could be taken as establishing the agreement of Contracting States regarding the interpretation of a Convention provision (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, pp. 40-41, § 103, and Article 31 § 3 (b) of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties) but not to create new rights and obligations which were not included in the Convention at the outset (see, mutatis mutandis, the Johnston and Others judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 25, § 53).

    The Court has repeatedly underlined that "the object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings require that its provisions be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective" (see the Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 34, § 87).

    [3] Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 35, § 91.

  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82

    JOHNSTON AND OTHERS v. IRELAND

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
    Subsequent practice could be taken as establishing the agreement of Contracting States regarding the interpretation of a Convention provision (see, mutatis mutandis, the above-mentioned Soering judgment, Series A no. 161, pp. 40-41, § 103, and Article 31 § 3 (b) of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties) but not to create new rights and obligations which were not included in the Convention at the outset (see, mutatis mutandis, the Johnston and Others judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 112, p. 25, § 53).
  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
    Moreover, the evidence adduced does not show that there were obstacles to establishing family life in their home country (see, mutatis mutandis, the Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, p. 34, § 68).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

    V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark,

    Der Gerichtshof hat in seiner Rechtsprechung als Beispiel dafür, dass die Hoheitsgewalt eines beklagten Staates "sich nicht auf sein nationales Hoheitsgebiet beschränkt" (o.a. Urteil Loizidou ( vorgängige prozessuale Einreden ), § 62), auf Situationen hingewiesen, in denen die Auslieferung oder Ausweisung einer Person durch eine Vertragspartei Probleme hinsichtlich Artikel 2 und/oder 3 (oder ausnahmsweise in Bezug auf Artikel 5 und/oder 6) bereiten kann, d.h. die Verantwortung des Staates aufgrund der Konvention begründet (o.a. Urteil Söring, § 91, Cruz Varas und andere Beschwerdeführer ./. Schweden vom 20. März 1991, Serie A Nr. 201, §§ 69 u. 70, und Vilvarajah und andere Beschwerdeführer ./. Vereinigtes Königreich vom 30. Oktober 1991, Serie A Nr. 215, § 103).
  • EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 9300/07

    Herrmann ./. Deutschland

    Siehe das Kammerurteil in der Sache Mamatkulov und Abdurasulovic (a.a.O.), in dem der Gerichtshof wegen Nichtbeachtung des Artikels 39 seiner Verfahrensordnung eine Verletzung des Artikels 34 festgestellt hat und somit von dem Präzedenzfall Cruz Varas und andere./. Schweden, 20. März 1991, Rdnr. 102, Serie A Band 201, abgewichen ist.
  • EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

    LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70, and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

    According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70; and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103).

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