Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SOLDATENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Preliminary objections dismissed Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Turkmenistan) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07
• EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 2440/07

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  Therefore, Article 5 § 1 (c) and, accordingly, Article 5 § 3 of the Convention are not applicable in the present case (see Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, § 53).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  At the same time, it has held that 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) and that, where the sources available to it describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  The applicant referred to the Court's judgment in the case of Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands (no. 1948/04, § 147, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)), in which it had found that there would be a violation of Article 3 if the applicant returned to Somalia, since the national authorities could not guarantee his security.

 
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  In cases such as the present the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of sending the applicant to the receiving country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, § 108 in fine).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Garabayev v. Russia, cited above, § 73).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 125, ECHR 2005-X (extracts); Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 50-52, ECHR 2000-III; and Amuur, cited above).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.07.2015 - C-237/15

  Lanigan

  Vgl. insoweit EGMR, Soldatenko/Ukraine, 23. Oktober 2008, Nr. 2440/07, § 112, sowie Toniolo/San Marino und Italien, 26. Juni 2012, Nr. 44853/10, § 46.
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 27.10.2016 - C-640/15

  Vilkas

  27 - Urteile des EGMR vom 23. Oktober 2008, Soldatenko/Ukraine (CE:ECHR:2008:1023JUD000244007, Rn. 112), und vom 26. Juni 2012, Toniolo/San Marino und Italien (…CE:ECHR:2012:0626JUD004485310, Rn. 46 bis 50).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 04.05.2017 - C-18/16

  K.

  Diese Auffassung wird durch die Rechtsprechung des EGMR gestützt (vgl. z. B. Urteil des EGMR vom 23. Oktober 2008, Soldatenko/Ukraine, CE:ECHR:2008:1023JUD000244007, § 109).