Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y.-N. v. SWITZERLAND

  Art. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Y-N. et consorts contre la SUISSE

  Art. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 25579/09

  A. Y. c. FRANCE

  Le Gouvernement ajoute que c'est à la requérante qu'il incombe de rapporter la preuve du danger encouru et renvoie à cet égard à la décision Y.-N. et consorts c. Suisse (no 12102/86, décision de la Commission du 9 mai 1986, Décisions et rapports (DR) 47, p. 286).
• EKMR, 15.01.1993 - 21126/93

  YUEKSEL v. SWITZERLAND

  However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a serious fear of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the country to which the person is to be expelled (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286 with further references; mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 32 et seq., para. 81 et seq.).
• EKMR, 10.04.1992 - 19184/91

  N. v. SWITZERLAND

  However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a serious fear of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the receiving State (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286; mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 32 et seq., para. 81 et seq.).

 
• EKMR, 13.12.1991 - 19088/91

  S. v. SWITZERLAND

  However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a serious fear of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the receiving State (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286).
• EKMR, 14.10.1991 - 16381/90

  R. v. DENMARK

  However, the decision of a Contracting State to expel a person may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where there is a substantial risk that the person, if expelled, will be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the receiving country (see Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 35 et seq., para. 91, and No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286).
• EKMR, 02.09.1991 - 15693/89

  D. v. SWITZERLAND

  However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a serious risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the receiving State (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286; mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No. 161, p. 32 et seq.).
• EKMR, 16.01.1991 - 16531/90

  TAN c. PAYS-BAS

  However, thedecision of a Contracting State to deport a person may give rise to anissue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and hence engage theresponsibility of that State under the Convention, where there is arisk that a person, if deported, will be subjected to treatmentcontrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the receivingcountry (see Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, SeriesA no. 161, p. 35 et seq., para. 91; No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47p. 286).
• EKMR, 16.01.1991 - 15216/89

  X. v. NETHERLANDS

  However, the decision of a Contracting State to deport a person may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where there is a risk that a person, if deported, will be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the receiving country (see Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 35 et seq., para. 91; No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286).
• EKMR, 14.01.1991 - 17428/90

  A. v. SWITZERLAND

  However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a serious risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the receiving State (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286; mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 32 et seq.).
• EKMR, 13.07.1990 - 16766/90

  T. and T. v. SWITZERLAND

  However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a serious fear of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman treatment (see No. 12102/86, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 286 ; mutatis mutandis Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 32 et seq.).
• EKMR, 05.04.1993 - 19066/91

  c. AUTRICHE
• EKMR, 12.01.1991 - 14401/88

  A. ET K.B.F. c. TURQUIE