Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2010,64688
EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,64688)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21.10.2010 - 25404/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,64688)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 21. Oktober 2010 - 25404/09 (https://dejure.org/2010,64688)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,64688) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    GAFOROV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (six month period non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Tajikistan) Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

 
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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

    JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    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-... (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 72758/01

    Unschuldsvermutung (Entschädigungsansprüche; konkludente Schuldfeststellung bei

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    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, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

    NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    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; Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

    KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    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; Nesták v. Slovakia, no. 65559/01, §§ 88 and 89, 27 February 2007; and Khuzhin and Others v. Russia, no. 13470/02, § 94, 23 October 2008).
  • EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

    Minelli ./. Schweiz

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    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, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    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, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

    Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    These standards imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case (see Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II).
  • EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

    MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 123-127 above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

    Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    The Court reiterates at the outset that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94), and the right to political asylum is not explicitly protected by either the Convention or its Protocols (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, ECHR 2007-I (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

    GEBREMEDHIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09
    For other relevant documents, see the Court's judgment in the case of Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2007 V.
  • EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

    ABDOLKHANI ET KARIMNIA c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

    KHODZHAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  • VG Freiburg, 08.09.2020 - A 8 K 10988/17
    Damit geht der Schutz durch Art. 3 EMRK weiter als der Schutz durch Art. 32 und 33 der Genfer Flüchtlingskonvention (vgl. auch zum Vertrauen auf Zusicherungen: EGMR, Urteil vom 21.10.2010 - 25404/09 [Gaforov v. Russia] -, Rn. 138).
  • EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 40462/16

    M.N. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

    Si les rapports émanant d'États ou d'organisations internationales et non gouvernementales font état de représailles contre les personnes ne respectant pas les consignes gouvernementales en matière d'éducation religieuse des enfants de moins de 18 ans, il n'en est pas ainsi des adultes pratiquant et étudiant la religion musulmane individuellement ou en communauté, sauf s'ils appartiennent aux groupes islamistes extrémistes (Gaforov c. Russie, no 25404/09, §§ 101-140, 21 octobre 2010, Azimov c. Russie, no 67474/11, §§ 102-143, 18 avril 2013).
  • EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

    N.K. v. RUSSIA

    In so far as the applicant's complaint concerned the risk of ill-treatment that he ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by Tajik authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

    LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

    Aux yeux de la cour, les arrêts de la Cour européenne rendus dans les affaires Gaforov (no 25404/09, 21 octobre 2010), Iskandarov (no 17185/05, 23 septembre 2010), et Khodzhayev (no 52466/08, 12 mai 2010) contre la Russie n'avaient constaté que des faits isolés de violation de la loi nationale et de la Convention à l'égard des intéressés, de sorte qu'ils ne pouvaient pas servir de base pour refuser l'extradition de M. Latipov.
  • EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 29958/20

    A.Y. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    In so far as A.Y.'s and F.K.'s complaint concerns the risk of ill-treatment that they ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by Tajik authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010).
  • EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 39747/10

    VOYNOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court observes that it has on many occasions analysed the effectiveness of the mechanism set out in Chapter 25 of the CCP as a remedy in a variety of contexts, such as conditions of pre-trial detention (see Ananyev and Others, cited above, §§ 107-12), non-enforcement of final domestic judgments (see Burdov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 33509/04, § 103, ECHR 2009), and detention pending extradition (see Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, § 169, 21 October 2010).
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