Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  In the Court's view, those charges are, without any doubt, of a political and religious character (see Kholmurodov v. Russia, no. 58923/14, § 65, 1 March 2016).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  In particular, the Court reaffirms its constant position that the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation where the events giving rise to a complaint under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention lie within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in custody (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII), or where, although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities, it is possible to establish in the context of a disappearance complaint under Article 5 of the Convention that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities, entered a place under their control and has not been seen since (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  In those circumstances the Court will not then insist that the applicant show the existence of further special distinguishing features (see Saadi, cited above, § 132, and N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 116, 17 July 2008).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  In particular, the Court reaffirms its constant position that the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation where the events giving rise to a complaint under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention lie within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons under their control in custody (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII), or where, although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities, it is possible to establish in the context of a disappearance complaint under Article 5 of the Convention that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities, entered a place under their control and has not been seen since (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  ISKANDAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously concluded that a forcible transfer of an individual to a State that was not a party to the Convention by aircraft from Moscow or the surrounding region could not happen without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the Russian authorities (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 113-15, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, 14743/11, §§ 125-27, 2 October 2012; and Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 176, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously concluded that a forcible transfer of an individual to a State that was not a party to the Convention by aircraft from Moscow or the surrounding region could not happen without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the Russian authorities (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 113-15, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, 14743/11, §§ 125-27, 2 October 2012; and Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 176, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  Any airport serving international flights is subject to heightened security measures, remaining under the permanent control of the respondent State's authorities and notably, the State border service (ibid., also, see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 201-02, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously concluded that a forcible transfer of an individual to a State that was not a party to the Convention by aircraft from Moscow or the surrounding region could not happen without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the Russian authorities (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 113-15, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, 14743/11, §§ 125-27, 2 October 2012; and Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 176, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  To hold otherwise would suggest that there existed an obligation on the authorities constantly to supervise any Uzbek or Tajik nationals on Russian territory, which would not only impose an unrealistic burden on the State but would also run contrary to the notion of the personal autonomy of such foreign nationals, which is an important principle underlying the interpretation of the guarantees of Article 8 of the Convention (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III).

• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  N.K. v. RUSSIA

  Lastly, in the view of the above and having regard to the facts as alleged by the applicant and his representatives and confirmed by their detailed written statements, and the Government's failure to substantiate their version of facts about voluntary nature of the applicant's return with results of the domestic investigation or other evidence (see Appendix, "Other relevant information" Summary of the parties' submissions; and see Khamidkariyev v. Russia, no. 42332/14, § 120, 26 January 2017), the Court is satisfied that the applicant has been subject of an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, §§ 177-85, 197-204, 214-19).
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 60990/14

  B.Y. c. GRÈCE

  Dès lors, la Cour se penchera sur la question de savoir si le requérant a présenté devant elle un tel récit, corroboré par des preuves indépendantes, et, dans l'affirmative, si le Gouvernement a fourni une explication satisfaisante et convaincante, pouvant réfuter les allégations de l'intéressé (Khamidkariyev c. Russie, no 42332/14, § 125, 26 janvier 2017).
• EGMR - 10299/18 (anhängig)

  ALDAMOV c. RUSSIE

  Compte tenu de l'obligation des Hautes Parties contractantes de fournir à la Cour toutes les facilités nécessaires, que celle-ci cherche à établir les faits ou à accomplir ses fonctions d'ordre général afférentes à l'examen des requêtes, et sachant que le défaut de communication par un gouvernement, sans justification satisfaisante, d'informations en sa possession peut non seulement amener la Cour à tirer des conclusions quant au bien-fondé des allégations du requérant, mais aussi avoir des conséquences sur l'appréciation de la mesure dans laquelle l'État défendeur peut passer pour s'être acquitté de ses obligations découlant de l'article 38 de la Convention (Janowiec et autres c. Russie [GC], nos 55508/07 et 29520/09, §§ 202-206, CEDH 2013, avec les références citées, Khamidkariyev c. Russie, no 42332/14, § 108, 26 janvier 2017, et Tomov et autres c. Russie, nos 18255/10 et 5 autres, §§ 84-91, 9 avril 2019), le Gouvernement est invité à fournir tous les documents pertinents relatifs à la démolition en juillet 2014 des bâtiments situés dans la rue Kalanchakskaya, ainsi qu'à indiquer ce qui se trouve actuellement à la place des bâtiments démolis.
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The Government's claim that they had no information about anyone being ill-treated in Uzbekistan appeared to be false in the light of the recent reports by Amnesty International about the destiny of Mr Khamidkariyev who had been abducted in Russia and forcibly returned to Uzbekistan where he faced an unfair trial based on his confessions obtained by torture (see paragraph 33 above and the facts of application no. 42332/14).