Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2009,38122
EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,38122)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22.09.2009 - 30471/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,38122)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 22. September 2009 - 30471/08 (https://dejure.org/2009,38122)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,38122) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ABDOLKHANI ET KARIMNIA c. TURQUIE [Extraits]

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 3 (en cas d'expulsion vers l'Iran ou l'Irak) Violation de l'art. 13+3 Violation de l'art. 5-1 Violation de l'art. 5-2 Violation de l'art. 5-4 Préjudice moral - réparation Dommage matériel - demande rejetée (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ABDOLKHANI AND KARIMNIA v. TURKEY

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 (in case of deportation to Iran or Irak) Violation of Art. 13+3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-2 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

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 ... (87)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

  • EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

    CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    The Court notes there is no call to exclude the applicants in the present case from the benefits of paragraph 2, as paragraph 4 makes no distinction between persons deprived of their liberty by arrest and those deprived of it by detention (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, §§ 413 and 414, ECHR 2005-III).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

    Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse,

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    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, § 35, ECHR 2007-I).
  • EGMR, 18.10.2006 - 46410/99

    Rechtssache ÜNER gegen die NIEDERLANDE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    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 Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 67; Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports 1997-VI).
  • EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 43844/98

    Dubliner Übereinkommen, Dublinverfahren, Großbritannien, Sri Lanka, sichere

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    The Court reiterates in this connection that the indirect removal of an alien to an intermediary country does not affect the responsibility of the expelling Contracting State to ensure that he or she is not, as a result of its decision to expel, exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III; Salah Sheekh, cited above, § 141).
  • EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

    Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    Similarly, in the case of N.A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 25904/07, § 90, 17 July 2008), the Court further held that judicial review, where it is available and where the lodging of an application for judicial review will operate as a bar to removal, must be regarded as an effective remedy which in principle applicants will be required to exhaust before lodging an application with the Court or indeed requesting interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to delay a removal.
  • EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

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

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    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, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

    ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    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 Üner v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 46410/99, § 54, ECHR 2006-XII; Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 94, § 67; Boujlifa v. France, 21 October 1997, § 42, Reports 1997-VI).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    The Court notes that it has already held in its judgment in the case of Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France (no. 25389/05, § 66, ECHR 2007-V) that, where an applicant seeks to prevent his or her removal from a Contracting State, a remedy will only be effective if it has automatic suspensive effect (see also Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

    GEBREMEDHIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
    The Court notes that it has already held in its judgment in the case of Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France (no. 25389/05, § 66, ECHR 2007-V) that, where an applicant seeks to prevent his or her removal from a Contracting State, a remedy will only be effective if it has automatic suspensive effect (see also Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I).
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