Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law (Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, 17 January 2013; Selcuk and Akser v. Turkey, nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94, 24 April 1998; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III); and particularly Aden Ahmed (cited above), and the principles cited therein.
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  They considered that the conditions of detention at issue could not be compared to those in facilities in respect of which the Court had found a violation (for example, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, ECHR 2001-II; S.D. v. Greece, no. 53541/07, 11 June 2009; and A.A. v. Greece, no. 12186/08, 22 July 2010).
• EGMR, 24.04.1998 - 23184/94

  SELÇUK ET ASKER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law (Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, 17 January 2013; Selcuk and Akser v. Turkey, nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94, 24 April 1998; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III); and particularly Aden Ahmed (cited above), and the principles cited therein.

 
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  The Court notes that even scarce space in relative terms may in some circumstances be compensated for by the freedom to spend time away from the dormitory rooms (see Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 103 and 107, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Nurmagomedov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30138/02, 16 September 2004).
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 53541/07

  S.D. c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  They considered that the conditions of detention at issue could not be compared to those in facilities in respect of which the Court had found a violation (for example, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, ECHR 2001-II; S.D. v. Greece, no. 53541/07, 11 June 2009; and A.A. v. Greece, no. 12186/08, 22 July 2010).
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 12186/08

  A.A. c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  They considered that the conditions of detention at issue could not be compared to those in facilities in respect of which the Court had found a violation (for example, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, ECHR 2001-II; S.D. v. Greece, no. 53541/07, 11 June 2009; and A.A. v. Greece, no. 12186/08, 22 July 2010).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  SIZAREV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  The Government referred to the Court's case-law (Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, 17 January 2013; Selcuk and Akser v. Turkey, nos. 23184/94 and 23185/94, 24 April 1998; Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III); and particularly Aden Ahmed (cited above), and the principles cited therein.

• EGMR, 23.04.2024 - 71008/16

  M.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  "52. As regards the guarantee enshrined in the first limb of [Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention], in accordance with which no one is to be deprived of his liberty, except in the case of the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, it should be noted that that guarantee does not preclude necessary detention measures being taken against third-country nationals who have made an application for international protection, provided that such a measure is lawful and implemented in accordance with the objective of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see, to that effect,... Saadi [cited above, §§ 64-74, and] Mahamed Jama v. Malta, [no. 10290/13, §§ 136-40, 26 November 2015]).
• EuGH, 14.09.2017 - C-18/16

  K. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Normen für die Aufnahme von Personen, die …

  In Bezug auf die in Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f erster Satzteil EMRK enthaltene Garantie, dass die Freiheit nur bei rechtmäßiger Festnahme oder Freiheitsentziehung zur Verhinderung der unerlaubten Einreise entzogen werden darf, wie sie vom EGMR ausgelegt wird, ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass sie nicht verhindert, dass gegenüber Drittstaatsangehörigen, die internationalen Schutz beantragt haben, erforderliche Haftmaßnahmen erlassen werden können, sofern eine solche Maßnahme rechtmäßig ist und unter Bedingungen durchgeführt wird, die dem Ziel des Schutzes des Einzelnen vor Willkür entsprechen (vgl. in diesem Sinne EGMR, 29. Januar 2008, Saadi/Vereinigtes Königreich, CE:ECHR:2008:0129JUD001322903, §§ 64 bis 74, und vom 26. November 2015, Mahamed Jama/Malta, CE:ECHR:2015:1126JUD001029013, §§ 136 bis 140).
• EGMR, 21.07.2022 - 5797/17

  DARBOE AND CAMARA v. ITALY

  In these circumstances, the Court sees no need to examine the existence or validity of his consent to undergo a medical examination, or to assess its appropriateness (see, mutatis mutandis, Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, 26 November 2015 and Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v. Malta, nos.

 
• EGMR, 22.02.2024 - 10940/17

  M.H. AND S.B. v. HUNGARY

  It reiterates, firstly, that Article 5 § 1 (b) could also potentially provide justification, in certain circumstances, for the detention of asylum-seekers (see O.M. v. Hungary, cited above, § 48) and, secondly, that Article 5 § 1 also requires, regardless of which sub-paragraph is engaged, that detention be in compliance with national law and free from arbitrariness (see paragraphs 67 to 70 above; see also Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, §§ 137-39, 26 November 2015, and Nabil and Others v. Hungary, no. 62116/12, § 38, 22 September 2015).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA

  In that light and given the limited periods at issue, these factors on their own do not justify a conclusion that the applicant was held in conditions in breach of Article 3 (compare, mutatis mutandis, Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 101, 26 November 2015, and contrast, for example, the conditions applicable to an applicant for a period of eleven months, for protective purposes, during his pre-trial detention in X v. Turkey, no. 24626/09, §§ 36-45, 9 October 2012, or those in Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, §§ 33-38, 7 June 2011, and Iorgov v. Bulgaria, no. 40653/98, § 82, 11 March 2004, which concerned periods of two or three years).
• EGMR, 21.11.2019 - 61411/15

  Gestrandete Flüchtlingen am Moskauer Flughafen: Gefangen in der Transitzone?

  In so far as the confinement of aliens and asylum-seekers is concerned, the Court reiterates the standard under Article 3 of the Convention, as recapitulated in M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece ([GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 216-18, ECHR 2011 (see also Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 44, ECHR 2001-II; Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, §§ 45-46, 27 July 2006; S.D. v. Greece, no. 53541/07, §§ 45-48, 11 June 2009; Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, §§ 86-89, 26 November 2015; Khlaifia and Others, cited above, §§ 163-67; Boudraa v. Turkey, no. 1009/16, §§ 28-29, 28 November 2017; and S.F. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 8138/16, §§ 78-83, 7 December 2017), according to which it must be accompanied by suitable safeguards for the persons concerned and is acceptable only in order to enable States to prevent unlawful immigration while complying with their international obligations and without depriving asylum-seekers of the protection afforded by the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights (see also Rahimi v. Greece, no. 8687/08, § 62, 5 April 2011, Khlaifia and Others, cited above, § 162, in the context of positive obligations vis-à-vis foreign nationals pending issuance of a transit visa; and Shioshvili and Others v. Russia, no. 19356/07, §§ 83-86, 20 December 2016).
• VG Hannover, 23.02.2018 - 10 B 921/18

  Malta; systemische Mängel

  Auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte stellte wiederholt eine Verletzung der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention durch Malta mit Blick auf die Inhaftierung von Asylbewerbern fest (vgl. Urteile vom 23.07.2013 - 42337/12 - Suso Musa/Malta -, vom 23.7.2013 - 55352/12 - Aden Ahmed/Malta -, vom 26.11.2015 - 10290/13 - Mahamed Jama/Malta -, und vom 03.05.2016 - 56796/13 - Abdi Mahamadu/Malta -, HUDOC).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22

  A.D. v. MALTA

  An issue may arise, inter alia, in respect of a State's good faith, in so far as the determination of age may take an unreasonable length of time - indeed, a lapse of various months may also result in an individual reaching his or her majority pending an official determination (see Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 147, 26 November 2015).
• EGMR, 03.03.2022 - 14743/17

  NIKOGHOSYAN AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The Court has already expressed reservations as to the practice of certain authorities of automatically placing asylum-seekers in detention without an individual assessment of their particular situation or needs (see, mutatis mutandis, Thimothawes v. Belgium, no. 39061/11, § 73, 4 April 2017, and Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 146, 26 November 2015).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 1009/16

  BOUDRAA v. TURKEY

  In that connection, the Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding conditions of detention (see, for instance, Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, §§ 45-49, ECHR 2001-II; Kaja v. Greece, no. 32927/03, §§ 47-50, 27 July 2006; S.D. v. Greece, no. 53541/07, §§ 49-54, 11 June 2009; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 216-22, ECHR 2011; Rahimi v. Greece, no. 8687/08, §§ 81-86, 5 April 2011; Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, §§ 90-102, 26 November 2015; and Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, §§ 178-211, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).