Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 30.05.2002 - 45279/99 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,43967) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2002 - 45279/99
In this connection, the Court points out that in several previous cases the Court has had occasion to rule on the responsibility under the Convention of a Contracting State where the complaint was that there were substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned, if expelled or extradited, would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 90-91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, § 69; the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, §§ 107-08; the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859, §§ 95-97, and, finally, Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2002 - 45279/99
In this connection, the Court points out that in several previous cases the Court has had occasion to rule on the responsibility under the Convention of a Contracting State where the complaint was that there were substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned, if expelled or extradited, would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 90-91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, § 69; the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, §§ 107-08; the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859, §§ 95-97, and, finally, Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, ECHR 2000-VIII). - EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 30.05.2002 - 45279/99
In this connection, the Court points out that in several previous cases the Court has had occasion to rule on the responsibility under the Convention of a Contracting State where the complaint was that there were substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned, if expelled or extradited, would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the country of destination (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 90-91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, § 69; the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, §§ 107-08; the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1859, §§ 95-97, and, finally, Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, ECHR 2000-VIII).