Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALTUN c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partielllement recevable partielllement irrecevable (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALTUN v. GERMANY

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)

• OVG Nordrhein-Westfalen, 26.05.2004 - 8 A 3852/03

  Kein Abschiebungsschutz für M. Kaplan

  vgl. Urteil vom 20. März 1991 - Nr. 46/1990/237/307 - Fall Cruz Varas, EuGRZ 1991, 203; Urteil vom 30. Oktober 1991 - Nr. 45/1990/236/302 - 306 - Fall Vilvarajah, NVwZ 1992, 869; Urteil vom 29. April 1997 - Nr. 11/1996/630/813 - Fall H. L. R., InfAuslR 1997, 333; Urteil vom 15. November 1996 - Nr. 70/1995/576/662 - Fall Chahal, InfAuslR 1997, 97; Urteil vom 17. Dezember 1976 - Nr. 71/1975/577/663 - Fall Ahmed, InfAuslR 1997, 279; Urteil vom 11. Juli 2000 - Nr. 40035/98 - Fall Jabari, EZAR 933, Nr. 9; Urteil vom 6. Februar 2001 - Nr. 44599/98 - Fall Bensaid, NVwZ 2002, 453; siehe aber auch: EKMR, Entscheidung vom 3. Mai 1983 - Nr. 10308/83 -, Fall Altun, EuGRZ 1983, 274.
• EKMR, 13.05.1987 - 9856/82

  K. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  29.5.61, Collection 6 p. 39 and culminating with Application No. 10308/83, Altun v. the Federal Republic of Germany, Dec.

  The applicant recalls that another asylum seeker found the fear of being returned to his country of origin so intolerable that he committed suicide even though he enjoyed a right of appeal denied to the applicant in the present case (No. 10308/83, Altun v. the Federal Republic of Germany, supra).

  Nevertheless, as the Commission's established case-law has consistently recognised, the removal of a person to a jurisdiction where he has legitimate reason to dread treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention may give rise to an issue engaging the responsibility of the removing State under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (No. 10308/83, Dec. 3.5.83, D.R. 36 p. 209).

• OVG Schleswig-Holstein, 15.03.1995 - 2 L 34/95

  Bürgerkrieg; Bürgerkriebssituation; Bewaffnete Konflikte; Afghanistan

  Entgegen der Ansicht der Beklagten ist dem Verwaltungsgericht allerdings darin beizupflichten, daß es nicht von vornherein ausgeschlossen ist, daß auch die von nicht-staatlicher Gewalt bedrohten Bürgerkriegsflüchtlinge unter dem Schutze des Art. 3 EMRK stehen und deshalb am Abschiebungsschutz des § 53 Abs. 4 AuslG teilhaben können (…vgl. Entscheidung der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte vom 06. März 1980, Nr. 8581/79, X. versus United Kingdom, Decisions and Reports (D. R.), Bd. 29, S. 48, dort insoweit erwogen, aber noch offengelassen: "Does this also apply when the danger does not arise from the public authorities but from autonomous groups against which the authorities allegedly do not protect the individual concerned? (Question not pursued).", ferner S. 54: "It is not necessary to decide here whether the Commission, in examining a case of this kind from the standpoint of Article 3, may into account an alleged danger arising, not from public authorities, but from autonomous groups, for the applicant has not provided evidence to substantiate his claims."; vgl. dann indes Entscheidung der Kommission vom 03. Mai 1983, Nr. 10308/83, Cemal Kemal Altun gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, D. R. Bd. 36, S. 209: "This may be so even if the danger does not emanate from public authorities for whom the receiving State is responsible", ferner S. 232: "In this respect the Commission emphasises that only the existence of an objektive danger to the person to be extradited may be considered.

 
• OVG Schleswig-Holstein, 22.02.1995 - 2 L 18/95
  Entgegen der Ansicht der Berufungsführerin ist dem Verwaltungsgericht allerdings darin beizupflichten, daß es nicht von vornherein ausgeschlossen ist, daß auch die von nicht-staatlicher Gewalt bedrohten Bürgerkriegsflüchtlinge unter dem Schutze des Art. 3 EMRK stehen und deshalb am Abschiebungsschutz des § 53 Abs. 4 AuslG teilhaben können (…vgl. Entscheidung der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte vom 06. März 1980, Nr. 8581/79, X. versus United Kingdom, Decisions and Reports (D. R.), Bd. 29, S. 48, dort insoweit erwogen, aber noch offengelassen: "Does this also apply when the danger does not arise from the public authorities but from autonomous groups against which the authorities allegedly do not protect the individual concerned? (Question not pursued).", ferner S. 54: "It is not necessary to decide here whether the Commission, in examining a case of this kind from the standpoint of Article 3, may into account an alleged danger arising, not from public authorities, but from autonomous groups, for the applicant has not provided evidence to substantiate his claims."; vgl. dann indes Entscheidung der Kommission vom 03. Mai 1983, Nr. 10308/83, Cemal Kemal Altun gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, D. R. Bd. 36, S. 209: "This may be so even if the danger does not emanate from public authorities for whom the receiving State is responsible", ferner S. 232: "In this respect the Commission emphasises that only the existence of an objektive danger to the person to be extradited may be considered.
• VG Karlsruhe, 29.04.1998 - A 10 K 14467/94

  Anspruch afghanischer Staatsangehöriger auf Asyl; Vollständige Ausfüllung eines …

  Kontextvorschau leider nicht verfügbar
• EGMR, 03.12.2002 - 35671/97

  LINDNER AND HAMMERMAYER v. ROMANIA

  De toute manière, la nature particulière de ce grief, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, ne permet pas de le considérer comme transmissible (voir, mutatis mutandis, Altun c. Allemagne no 10308/83, rapport de la Commission du 7 mars 1984 (DR) 36, p 236).
• EKMR, 07.03.1991 - 17387/90

  A. v. SWEDEN

  The Commission first recalls that according to its established case-law the right to asylum and the right not to be expelled are not as such included among the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Convention but that the expulsion of a person may nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, raise an issue under the Convention and in particular under Article 3 (Art. 3) where there are serious grounds for fearing that the person concerned would be subjected, in the State to which he is to be sent, to treatment which is in violation of this Article (see e.g. No. 10308/83, Dec. 3.5.84, D.R. 36 pp. 209, 231 and No. 10564/83, dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 pp. 262, 265).
• EKMR, 07.03.1991 - 17426/90

  A. v. SWEDEN

  The Commission first recalls that according to its established case-law the right to asylum and the right not to be expelled are not as such included among the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Convention but that the expulsion of a person may nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, raise an issue under the Convention and in particular under Article 3 (Art. 3) where there are serious grounds for fearing that the person concerned would be subjected, in the State to which he is to be sent, to treatment which is in violation of this Article (see e.g. No. 10308/83, Dec. 3.5.84, D.R. 36 pp. 209, 231 and No. 10564/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 pp. 262, 265).
• EKMR, 02.07.1990 - 16210/90

  A.S. ; M.S. v. SWEDEN

  The Commission first recalls that according to its establishedcase-law the right to asylum and the right not to be expelled are not assuch included among the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Conventionbut that the expulsion of a person may nevertheless, in certainexceptional circumstances, raise an issue under the Convention and inparticular under Article 3 (Art. 3) where there are serious grounds tofear that the person concerned would be subjected, in the State towhich he is to be sent, to treatment which is in violation of thisArticle (Art. 3) (see e.g. No. 1802/62, Dec. 26.3.63, Yearbook 6 pp.462, 480; No. 10308/83, Dec. 3.5.84, D.R. 36 pp. 209, 231; No. 10564/83,Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 pp. 262, 265).
• EKMR, 15.07.1988 - 14014/88

  B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Commisison first recalls that according to its established case-law the right to asylum and the freedom from expulsion are not as such included among the rights and freedoms mentioned in the Convention but that the expulsion of a person may nevertheless, in certain exceptional circumstances, raise an issue under the Convention and in particular under Article 3 (Art. 3) where there are serious grounds to fear that the person concerned would be subjected, in the State to which he is to be sent, to treatment which is in violation of this Article (see e.g. No. 1802/62, Dec. 26.3.63, Yearbook 6 pp. 462, 480; No. 10308/83, Dec. 3.5.84, D.R. 36 pp. 209, 231; No. 10564/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 pp. 262, 265).
• EKMR, 28.05.1991 - 16832/90

  KOZLOV v. FINLAND
• EKMR, 10.10.1990 - 17270/90

  S. v. SWEDEN
• EKMR, 07.07.1987 - 12553/86

  N.E. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM