Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND
Art. 3, Art. ... 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+5, Art. 13+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 52 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective ... - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse (5)
- internet-law.de (Kurzinformation)
Polen hat die CIA bei der Verschleppung von Terrorverdächtigen unterstützt und die Menschenrechtskonvention verletzt
- spiegel.de (Pressemeldung, 24.07.2014)
Illegales CIA-Gefängnis in Polen: Menschrechtsgericht sieht Warschau als Mittäter
- sueddeutsche.de (Pressebericht, 24.07.2014)
CIA-Geheimgefängnis geduldet: Menschenrechtsgerichtshof straft Polen ab
- juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)
Polen muss 100.000 EUR an mutmaßliche al-Qaida-Terroristen zahlen
- taz.de (Pressebericht zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 04.12.2013)
Polen als Handlanger der CIA
Besprechungen u.ä. (4)
- sueddeutsche.de (Pressekommentar, 24.07.2014)
CIA-Gefängnis in Polen: Folter mit Folgen
- taz.de (Pressekommentar, 25.07.2014)
Urteil zu CIA-Gefängnissen: Europa ist kein Hinterhof
- juwiss.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Polen vor dem EGMR: Komplize im ‘extraordinary rendition programme’ der CIA
- taz.de (Pressekommentar zum Verfahren - vor Ergehen der Entscheidung, 04.12.2013)
US-Geheimgefängnisse In Polen: Die schwarzen Löcher Europas
Sonstiges (3)
- zeit.de (Meldung mit Bezug zur Entscheidung, 18.05.2015)
Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND
Art. 3, Art. 3+13, Art. 5, Art. 5+13, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 8, Art. 8+13, Art. 13 MRK
[ENG] - Telepolis (Meldung mit Bezug zur Entscheidung, 26.07.2014)
CIA-Gefängnis: Polen will Straßburger Urteil nicht akzeptieren
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (27)
- EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
In particular, in a case where the application raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999 IV; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 200, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see Imakayeva, cited above, no. 7615/02, § 113, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.
The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see El-Masri, cited above, § 152; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, §§ 114-115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).
- EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00
Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
The Court observes at the outset that, in contrast to many other previous cases before it involving complaints about torture, ill-treatment in custody or unlawful detention, in the present case it is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant (for example, compare and contrast with El-Masri, §§ 16-36 and 156-167; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 13-24, ECHR 1999-V; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 16-18, ECHR 2006-IX; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 188-211, ECHR 2004-VII).The assessment of this minimum depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
- EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 27251/03
SHAKHGIRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
Although the structure of the Court's judgments traditionally reflects the numbering of the Articles of the Convention, it has also been customary for the Court to examine the Government's compliance with their procedural obligation under Article 38 of the Convention at the outset, especially if negative inferences are likely to be drawn from the Government's failure to submit the requested evidence (see, among other cases, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 209, ECHR 2013-...; Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 134-140, 8 January 2009; Utsayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 29133/03, §§ 149-153, 29 May 2008; Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, §§ 74-77, 10 January 2008; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, §§ 73-77, 29 November 2007).The respondent Government cannot refuse to comply with the Court's evidential request by relying on their national laws or the alleged lack of sufficient safeguards in the Court's procedure guaranteeing the confidentiality of documents or imposing sanctions for a breach of confidentiality (see Nolan and K. cited above; Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 136-140, 8 January 2009; and Janowiec and Others, cited above §§ 210-211).
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
The Court observes at the outset that, in contrast to many other previous cases before it involving complaints about torture, ill-treatment in custody or unlawful detention, in the present case it is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant (for example, compare and contrast with El-Masri, §§ 16-36 and 156-167; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 13-24, ECHR 1999-V; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 16-18, ECHR 2006-IX; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 188-211, ECHR 2004-VII).Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see, among many other examples, Soering, cited above, § 88; Selmouni, cited above, no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV); Ilascu and Others cited above, § 424; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 375 and El-Masri, cited above, § 195; see also Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 26-31, ECHR 2001-XI).
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 96, 18 December 2012; and El-Masri, cited above, § 154).2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 97, 18 December 2012).
- EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 5432/07
KADIROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
That being so, the Court considers that it should be joined to the merits of that complaint and examined at a later stage (see, mutatis mutandis, Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, §§ 72 and 80, 12 October 2006; and Kadirova and Others v. Russia, no. 5432/07, §§ 75-76, 27 March 2012).While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence, if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the Court to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred, strong inferences can be drawn (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 184, ECHR 2009, with further references; Kadirova and Others v. Russia, no. 5432/07, § 94, 27 March 2012; and Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see, among many other examples, Soering, cited above, § 88; Selmouni, cited above, no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV); Ilascu and Others cited above, § 424; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 375 and El-Masri, cited above, § 195; see also Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 26-31, ECHR 2001-XI). - EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01
ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13
Although the structure of the Court's judgments traditionally reflects the numbering of the Articles of the Convention, it has also been customary for the Court to examine the Government's compliance with their procedural obligation under Article 38 of the Convention at the outset, especially if negative inferences are likely to be drawn from the Government's failure to submit the requested evidence (see, among other cases, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 209, ECHR 2013-...; Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 134-140, 8 January 2009; Utsayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 29133/03, §§ 149-153, 29 May 2008; Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, §§ 74-77, 10 January 2008; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, §§ 73-77, 29 November 2007). - EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 11949/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07
Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
ILHAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 29133/03
UTSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91
QUINN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94
ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 61498/08
AL-SAADOON AND MUFDHI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
- EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96
EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
- EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00
TANGIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
- EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02
CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
- EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
- EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97
ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 26374/18
GUÐMUNDUR ANDRI ÁSTRÁÐSSON v. ICELAND
In that context, the term refers to a trial "which is manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles embodied therein" (see Ahorugeze v. Sweden, no. 37075/09, § 114, 27 October 2011; Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 259, ECHR 2012 (extracts); Al Nashiri v Poland, no. 28761/11, § 562, 24 July 2014; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 552, 24 July 2014; and Harkins v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14, § 62, 15 June 2017). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.06.2018 - C-216/18
Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev ist die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen …
60 EGMR, 17. Januar 2012, 0thman (Abu Qatada) gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD000813909, § 263 bis 287), EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD000751113, § 559), EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Al Nashiri gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002876111, § 565 bis 569), und EGMR, 31. Mai 2018, Al Nashiri gegen Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2018:0531JUD003323412, § 719 bis 722). - EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 8138/16
Bulgarien, minderjährig, Haftbedingungen, Rechtswegerschöpfung, Schadensersatz, …
These points reflect the well-established principle of international law that international courts are not bound by domestic evidentiary rules (see, in relation specifically to the Court, Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 23, 24 July 2014, and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 21, 24 July 2014).
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 41040/11
IUSTIN ROBERTINO MICU v. ROMANIA
This has happened, on occasion, in cases concerning unacknowledged detention (Ä°pek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 209, ECHR 2004-II), or where the State's responsibility was engaged in respect of secret detention on its territory (Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, 24 July 2014), or where the record of an arrest had been destroyed (Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, 3 November 2011). - EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 49111/08
WIESMAN v. THE NETHERLANDS
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the procedural obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into an applicant's allegation of having been subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 (see, for example, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 24760/94, § 102, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII; El-Masri v. "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 182-185, ECHR 2012; and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland [GC], no. 7511/13, §§ 479-480, 24 July 2014). - EGMR - 31908/22 (anhängig)
AL-NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA
A detailed account of the HVD Programme can be found in the Court's judgments in Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, §§ 47-68, 24 July 2014; Husyan (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (no. 7511/13, §§ 47-69, 24 July 2014); Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (no. 46454/11, §§ 20-53, 31 May 2018); and Al Nashiri v. Romania (no. 33234/12, §§ 22-61, 31 May 2018). - EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06
GAVRYLOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
The Court also notes that any material requested by it must be produced promptly and, in any event, before the deadline set by it, as any substantial or unexplained delay may lead the Court to find the respondent State's explanations unconvincing (see Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 203, ECHR 2013, with further references, and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, no. 7511/13, § 356, 24 July 2014).