Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  O.O. v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Expulsion) (Substantive aspect) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  O.O. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  In this regard, the present case is distinctly different from a number of previously decided cases where a failure to comply with an interim measure took place in the context of: an applicant's disappearance (see Mamazhonov, cited above, §§ 173-209, 214-19), an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 177-85, 197-204, 214-19, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), or an action otherwise outside of the normal functioning of the law-enforcement authorities (see Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, §§ 212-217, 7 November 2013 or Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, §§ 69-72, 21 May 2015).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  In this regard, the present case is distinctly different from a number of previously decided cases where a failure to comply with an interim measure took place in the context of: an applicant's disappearance (see Mamazhonov, cited above, §§ 173-209, 214-19), an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 177-85, 197-204, 214-19, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), or an action otherwise outside of the normal functioning of the law-enforcement authorities (see Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, §§ 212-217, 7 November 2013 or Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, §§ 69-72, 21 May 2015).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  As regards the applicant's remaining complaints under Articles 13 and 46 of the Convention, the Court, having regard to the facts of the case and the findings under Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention, considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  The relevant general principles concerning the application of Article 3 have recently been summarised by the Court in the judgment in the case of F.G. v. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 111-27, ECHR 2016) and in the context of removals from Russia to Central Asian states in Mamazhonov v. Russia (no. 17239/13, §§ 127-35, 23 October 2014).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  In this regard, the present case is distinctly different from a number of previously decided cases where a failure to comply with an interim measure took place in the context of: an applicant's disappearance (see Mamazhonov, cited above, §§ 173-209, 214-19), an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 177-85, 197-204, 214-19, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), or an action otherwise outside of the normal functioning of the law-enforcement authorities (see Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, §§ 212-217, 7 November 2013 or Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, §§ 69-72, 21 May 2015).
• EGMR, 01.02.2018 - 9373/15

  M.A. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  According to the Court's established case-law, a respondent State's failure to comply with an interim measure entails a violation of that right (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 102 and 125, ECHR 2005-I; and, recently, M.A. v. France, no. 9373/15, §§ 64-65, 1 February 2018; and A.S. v. France, no. 46240/15, §§ 72-75, 19 April 2018).
• EGMR, 19.04.2018 - 46240/15

  A.S. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  According to the Court's established case-law, a respondent State's failure to comply with an interim measure entails a violation of that right (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 102 and 125, ECHR 2005-I; and, recently, M.A. v. France, no. 9373/15, §§ 64-65, 1 February 2018; and A.S. v. France, no. 46240/15, §§ 72-75, 19 April 2018).

• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  N.K. v. RUSSIA

  The Court also considers that given the circumstances of the present case, the Russian Government had not complied with an indication of an interim measure and nothing had objectively impeded that compliance (see O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, §§ 59-63, 21 May 2019).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 42874/18

  BURIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Government failed to indicate any particular circumstances objectively impeding compliance with the measure during a lapse of time which, by itself and also when considered in the context of available modern technologies, appears to be amply sufficient for all competent and relevant authorities to have been notified that the applicant's removal to Tajikistan had been stayed by the Court (see O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, §§ 62-63, 21 May 2019, and Yusupov, cited above, §§ 74-75).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 30227/18

  YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA

  However, having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and, particularly, its findings under Articles 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 48-51 and 58-61 above), the Court considers that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention under either of the heads in the present case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and, in a similar context, O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, § 64, 21 May 2019).