Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANDRIC v. SWEDEN

  Art. 3, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99

  In this connection, the Court notes that, in assessing whether a deportation involves such a trauma that it in itself constitutes a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, its physical and mental effects and the state of health of the person concerned are to be taken into account (see Eur. Court HR, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31, §§ 83-84, and the opinion of the Commission, p. 87, §§ 87-90).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99

  However, an expulsion decision may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of the State, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he or she is to be expelled (see, among other authorities, the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, §§ 102-103).

• EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

  Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

  That definition was used subsequently by the Convention bodies in other cases concerning Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. The Court observes that the majority of such cases involved persons who were on the territory at issue (see K.G. v. the F.R.G., no. 7704/76, Commission Decision of 1 March 1977; O. and Others v. Luxembourg, no. 7757/77, Commission Decision of 3 March 1978; A. and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 14209/88, Commission Decision of 16 December 1988; Andric v. Sweden (dec), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I; Davydov v. Estonia (dec), no. 16387/03, 31 May 2005; Berisha and Haljiti v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", no. 18670/03, decision of 16 June 2005; Sultani v. France, no. 45223/05, ECHR 2007-X; Ghulami v. France (dec), no. 45302/05, 7 April 2009; and Dritsas v. Italy (dec), no. 2344/02, 1 February 2011).

  See, for the standard of international human rights and refugee law, Andric v. Sweden, decision of 23 February 1999, no. 45917/99; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 81-83, ECHR 2002-I; Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 66-67, ECHR 2007-II; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above,§§ 301-302 and 388-389; and I.M. v. France, no. 9152/09, § 154, 2 February 2012; Report to the Italian Government on the visit to Italy carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 27 to 31 July 2009, para.

• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

  Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

  Where there was evidence of such an interview, however, the Court had excluded any violation of that provision in the cases of M.A. v. Cyprus (no. 41872/10, ECHR 2013); Sultani v. France (no. 45223/05, ECHR 2007-IV); and Andric v. Sweden ((dec.) no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect, and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Sisojeva and Others, cited above, § 93, with further references to the cases of Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005).

 
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  AUAD v. BULGARIA

  Lastly, there is no indication that the authorities have suspended its enforcement (contrast Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999), or that it is possible to challenge its enforcement (contrast Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, § 56, ECHR 2001-X; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005).
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 45223/05

  SULTANI v. FRANCE

  The Government considered that in the instant case the French authorities had complied with the Court's case-law (they referred to Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999, and Conka [v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I]) since no official statement announcing an intention on the part of the French authorities to conduct collective expulsions had preceded the introduction of reserved flights to Afghanistan and the applicant's request had been responded to in an individualised and personal decision.
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 24917/15

  ASADY AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  According to that case-law, an expulsion is deemed to be "collective" for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 if it compels aliens, as a group, to leave a country, "except where such a measure is taken on the basis of a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group" (see Khlaifia and Others, cited above, §§ 237 et seq.; Georgia v. Russia (I), cited above, § 167; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Davydov v. Estonia (dec.), no. 16387/03, 31 May 2005; Sultani v. France, no. 45223/05, § 81, ECHR 2007-IV (extracts); and Ghulami v. France (dec.), no. 45302/05, 7 April 2009).
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 2344/02

  DRITSAS ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  La Cour considère d'emblée qu'il faut entendre par expulsion collective, au sens de l'article 4 du Protocole no 4, toute mesure contraignant des étrangers, en tant que groupe, à quitter un pays, sauf dans les cas où une telle mesure est prise à l'issue et sur la base d'un examen raisonnable et objectif de la situation particulière de chacun des étrangers qui forment le groupe (Andric c. Suède (déc.), no 45917/99, 23 février 1999 et Conka c. Belgique, no 51564/99, § 59, CEDH 2002-I).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  KARIMOV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andriÿ v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 4512/02

  KOSTADINOVIC c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  ABDULAZHON ISAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 42987/09

  ANDREYEV v. ESTONIA