|EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07|
- 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 ...
- EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07
- EGMR, 05.09.2018 - 2440/07
Wird zitiert von ... (47)
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 8139/09
Othman (Abu Qatada) ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
- EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 41015/04
KABOULOV v. UKRAINEThe relevant domestic law and practice, including the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the Code on Administrative Justice and the relevant extracts from the Supreme Court's practice, are summarised in the judgment of Soldatenko v. Ukraine (no. 2440/07, §§ 21 - 31, 23 October 2008).
The relevant provisions of the Convention are summarised in the judgment of Soldatenko v. Ukraine (no. 2440/07, §§ 21 - 31, 23 October 2008), and Ryabikin v. Russia (no. 8320/04, § 104, 19 June 2008).
Thus, it appears that the domestic courts in the applicant's case, as in the case of Soldatenko v. Ukraine (mutatis mutandis, no. 2440/07, § 49, 23 October 2008), were not able to review complaints against extradition raised under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
Consequently, it is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Convention for such measures to be executed before the national authorities have examined whether they are compatible with the Convention, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision (see Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, § 82, 23 October 2008).
The Court has already found that Ukrainian legislation does not provide for an extradition procedure that is sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable to avoid the risk of arbitrary detention pending extradition (Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, § 114, 23 October 2008).
However, these questions can remain unanswered as, even if the police who arrested the applicant were aware of his identity and were also aware that he was wanted for murder in Kazakhstan, such that the intention to extradite was present from the initial arrest, as is inherent in the Government's contention that the detention was covered by Article 5 § 1(f), the Court has already found that the Ukrainian legislation does not provide for an extradition procedure that is sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable to avoid the risk of arbitrary detention pending extradition (Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, § 114, 23 October 2008).
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07
Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes KönigreichBy the same token, in cases where such assurances have not been given or have been found to be inadequate, the Court has not had recourse to the extradition context to determine whether there would be a violation of Article 3 if the surrender were to take place (see, for example, Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, §§ 66-75, 23 October 2008).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.