Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAYDAROV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Tajikistan) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 72758/01

  Unschuldsvermutung (Entschädigungsansprüche; konkludente Schuldfeststellung bei …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  Whether a statement of a public official is in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence must be determined in the context of the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was made (see Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, § 43, ECHR 2000-X, and A.L. v. Germany, no. 72758/01, § 31, 28 April 2005).
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  It prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion that the person "charged with a criminal offence" is guilty before he has been so proved according to law (see Minelli v. Switzerland, 25 March 1983, § 37, Series A no. 62) but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority (see Allenet de Ribemont, cited above, § 41, and Butkevicius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 49, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  The presumption of innocence enshrined in paragraph 2 of Article 6 is one of the elements of the fair criminal trial that is required by paragraph 1 (see Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 35, Series A no. 308).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should therefore review whether this law has been complied with (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX, and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 47, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  The Court has consistently emphasised the importance of the choice of words by public officials in their statements before a person has been tried and found guilty of a particular criminal offence (see Böhmer v. Germany, no. 37568/97, §§ 54 and 56, 3 October 2002, and Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  SHAIPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  Having regard to its above findings (see paragraph 114 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to carry out a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  However, the Court reiterates that in cases concerning aliens facing expulsion or extradition it is entitled to compare materials made available by the Government with materials from other reliable and objective sources (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, ECHR 2007-I, and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 131, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach certain 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, cited above, §§ 99-100, Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005, Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, ECHR 2005-VI, and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  At the same time, 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).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  VIRABYAN v. ARMENIA

  Furthermore, a fundamental distinction must be made between a statement that someone is merely suspected of having committed a crime and a clear declaration, in the absence of a final conviction, that an individual has committed the crime in question (see Matijasevic v. Serbia, no. 23037/04, § 48, ECHR 2006-X, and Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, § 149, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 26417/10

  OUABOUR c. BELGIQUE

  Partant, s'il est vrai que les faits historiques présentent un intérêt dans la mesure où ils permettent d'éclairer la situation actuelle et son évolution probable, ce sont les circonstances présentes qui sont déterminantes (Mamatkoulov et Askarov c. Turquie [GC], nos 46827/99 et 46951/99, § 69, CEDH 2005-I, Saadi, précité, § 133, et Khaydarov c. Russie, no 21055/09, § 100, 20 mai 2010).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  NIZOMKHON DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, he referred to the Court's position in the case of Saadi v. Italy ([GC] no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008) and the cases concerning extradition to Tajikistan: Khodzhayev, cited above; Khaydarov v. Russia (no. 21055/09, 20 May 2010); and Gaforov, cited above, to the effect that diplomatic assurances were not sufficient to conclude that a State would refrain from subjecting the individual extradited to torture when various independent sources pointed to the existence of such practice in that State.
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Thus, the Court has already examined cases involving extradition to Tajikistan of persons charged with politically and/or religiously motivated criminal offences (see Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, 20 May 2010; and Gaforov, cited above).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 33809/08

  LABSI v. SLOVAKIA

  The relevant principles are summed up, for example, in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, §§ 113-121, 23 February 2012; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, §§ 124-148, ECHR 2008; Boutagni v. France, no. 42360/08, §§ 44-45, 18 November 2010; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 115, 126 and 127, 24 April 2008; Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, §§ 96-100 and 111, 20 May 2010; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, §§ 334-339 and 344, ECHR 2005-III; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, §§ 67-75, 10 June 2010; Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876/08, § 73, 17 June 2010; Ben Khemais v. Italy, no. 246/07, §§ 53-64, 24 February 2009; or Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, §§ 57-59 and 63-64, 10 December 2009.