Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TERSHIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Russia) Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Expulsion) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TERSHIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 3, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 61507/00

  ANDREI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  Although the examination on the merits resulted in the finding that the extradition would not amount to a violation of Article 3, the applicant's complaint was nevertheless "arguable" for the purpose of Article 13 of the Convention (compare, for example, Andrei Georgiev v. Bulgaria, no. 61507/00, § 67, 26 July 2007, and Mohammed v. Austria, no. 2283/12, §§ 85 and 111, 6 June 2013).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  He raised the same arguments in his appeal, but the Baku Court of Appeal's decision was silent in this regard (compare Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 84, 10 June 2010, and Chankayev, cited above, § 93).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 90-91, Series A no. 161).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see, among other authorities, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 95, Reports 1996-VI; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI; and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 288, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  The Court itself has had to deal with a large number of applications concerning conditions of detention in Russian remand prisons (see the Annex in Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012, for a list of final judgments in which at least one violation of Article 3 was found on account of inadequate conditions of detention in remand prisons).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  In determining whether it has been shown that the applicant runs a real risk, if extradited, of suffering treatment proscribed by Article 3, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it, or, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 75, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  In cases such as the present, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of the applicant being extradited to the requesting country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 108 in fine, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 21878/06

  Uganda, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Europäischer Gerichtshof für …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  It is in principle for the applicant to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, he or she would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the Government to dispel any doubts raised by it (see, among other authorities, Nnyanzi v. the United Kingdom, no. 21878/06, § 53, 8 April 2008).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  Even though the historical position is of interest in so far as it may shed light on the current situation and its likely evolution, it is the present conditions which are decisive (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 35/10

  ZARMAYEV c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 10226/13

  However, the general situation is not such as to conclude that any extradition of Chechens to Russia would violate Article 3 of the Convention (see Zarmayev v. Belgium, no. 35/10, § 67, 27 February 2014).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 54131/10

  Asyl, Widerruf, Achtung des Familienlebens, Refoulement, subsidiärer Schutz, …
• EGMR, 14.10.2003 - 17837/03

  TOMIC v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.09.2010 - 21022/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.09.2005 - 17416/05

  HUKIC v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 56688/12

  CHANKAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 54845/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.09.2009 - 43700/07

  HARUTIOENYAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  Judicial review proceedings constitute, in principle, an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention in relation to complaints arising in the context of expulsion and extradition, provided that the courts can effectively review the legality of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate (see Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 10226/13, § 71, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  Rn. 112 In determining whether it has been shown that the applicant runs a real risk, if extradited, of suffering treatment proscribed by Article 3, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it and, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu (see Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 10226/13, § 48, 31 July 2014, and López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 106, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  Une procédure de contrôle juridictionnel constitue en principe un recours effectif, au sens de l'article 13 de la Convention, pour faire état de griefs en matière d'expulsion et d'extradition, dès lors que les juridictions peuvent effectivement contrôler la légalité des décisions prises par le pouvoir exécutif dans l'exercice d'un pouvoir discrétionnaire, tant par rapport aux règles de fond que par rapport aux règles de procédure, et qu'elles ont le pouvoir, le cas échéant, d'annuler les décisions (Tershiyev c. Azerbaïdjan, no 10226/13, § 71, 31 juillet 2014).

• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 34999/16

  D.L. v. AUSTRIA

  The Court must therefore examine whether the applicant's personal situation and circumstances are such that his extradition to Kosovo would contravene Article 3 of the Convention (compare, for example, Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 10226/13, § 55, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 65916/10

  IBRAGIMOV v. SLOVAKIA

  However, the general situation is not such as to conclude that any extradition of Chechens to Russia would violate Article 3 of the Convention (see, recently, Zarmayev v. Belgium, no. 35/10, § 67, 27 February 2014 and, mutatis mutandis, Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 10226/13, §§ 53 and 55, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 43999/16

  Kosovo: Staatlicher Schutz vor Blutrache nach Auslieferung gegeben.

  68. The Court must therefore examine whether the applicant's personal situation and circumstances are such that his extradition to Kosovo would contravene Article 3 of the Convention (compare, for example, Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 10226/13, § 55, 31 July 2014).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 47679/17

  M.I. v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  With respect to the alleged risk of the applicant's being ill-treated in the event of his extradition, the Court notes that, as experience shows, the physical abuse of suspects by police officers usually occurs within the first few days of an arrest (see, for example, Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 10226/13, § 53, 31 July 2014, and A.Y. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 37146/12, § 58, 1 March 2016), which is a different type of situation from that now potentially faced by the applicant.
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 37146/12

  A.Y. v. SLOVAKIA

  In a further reply, the respondent Government pointed out that they had recently obtained an amendment and confirmation of the guarantees provided by the OPGRF (see paragraphs 29 and 30 above) and referred to the Court's decision in Ibragimov v. Slovakia (no. 65916/10, 30 June 2015) and judgments in the cases of Chankayev, (cited above); Zarmayev v. Belgium (no. 35/10, 27 February 2014); and Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan (no. 10226/13, 31 July 2014), in which no violation of Article 3 was found in the context of those applicants' extradition to the Russian Federation.