Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.S.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SHEYKH ALI v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR - 38237/16 (anhängig)

  Y.A. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  The case originated in nine applications (nos. 29957/14, 29961/14, 53980/15, 10583/16, 10796/16, 10803/16, 19980/16, 35675/16 and 38237/16) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by twelve Syrian nationals.

  Y.A.'s application (no. 38237/16).

  Scope of Y.A.'s application (no. 38237/16).

  38237/16.

• EGMR - 29961/14 (anhängig)

  KHABASH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  The case originated in nine applications (nos. 29957/14, 29961/14, 53980/15, 10583/16, 10796/16, 10803/16, 19980/16, 35675/16 and 38237/16) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by twelve Syrian nationals.

  M.S.A. and R.K. (application nos. 29957/14 and 29961/14) further complained that the conditions of their detention in the detention centre for foreign nationals had been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:.

  29961/14.

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  The Court notes that it examined complaints concerning the conditions of detention in a detention centre for foreign nationals in Krasnoye Selo, in the Leningrad Region, between 2011 and 2013, and established that they had fallen short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 17-22, 31-35, 17 July 2014).

• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06

  RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the Article 5 complaint lodged by the applicant later in the proceedings does not constitute a mere elaboration on his original complaints to the Court, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with this newly raised matter in the present case (see Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, §§ 69-70, 6 December 2011, with further references).
• EKMR, 26.02.1997 - 32809/96

  RENNA contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  Referring to Renna v. France, no. 32809/96, 26 February 1997, they further submitted:.
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  40081/14 and 2 others, §§ 61- 75, 15 October 2015, and in the follow-up case of S.K. v. Russia, no. 52722/15, §§ 23-41, 14 February 2017.
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  40081/14 and 2 others, §§ 61- 75, 15 October 2015, and in the follow-up case of S.K. v. Russia, no. 52722/15, §§ 23-41, 14 February 2017.
• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 60125/11

  V.M. ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  Such contact is essential, both in order to learn more about the applicant's particular situation and to confirm the applicant's continuing interest in pursuing the examination of his or her application (see V.M. and Others v. Belgium [GC], no. 60125/11, § 35, 17 November 2016).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  The above findings do not prevent Y.A. from lodging a new application with the Court and making use of the available procedures - including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court - in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011, and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  The above findings do not prevent Y.A. from lodging a new application with the Court and making use of the available procedures - including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court - in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011, and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  TUKHTAMURODOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 11673/15

  RAKHMONOV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 71321/17

  M.D. v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  Accordingly, in the light of these considerations, and given the Court's recurrent findings of violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of foreigners detained virtually indefinitely in Russia with a view to administrative expulsion, the Court finds that the length of the detention of M.D. and M.O. exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see the above-cited cases of L.M. and Others v. Russia, §§ 141-42 and 149-52, with further references, and S.K. v. Russia, no. 52722/15, §§ 108-09 and § 116, 14 February 2017; see also M.S.A. and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 29957/14 and 9 others, 12 December 2017, in which the Court found that the detention of Syrian nationals pending expulsion was in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 38042/18

  A.K. v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Accordingly, in the light of these considerations and given the recurrent findings of violations of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention in respect of foreigners or stateless persons detained virtually indefinitely in Russia with a view to their administrative expulsion (see R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-5, 8 October 2019; L.M. and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 145-52; Mumanzhinova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 724/18 and eight others, §§ 17-26, 8 October 2019; Ismailov v. Russia [Committee], no. 45852/17, §§ 22-3, 24 September 2019; and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 29957/14 and eight others, §§ 62-6, 12 December 2017), the Court finds that the length of the detention of A.K. and A.Y. exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose pursued and that their detention became a punitive rather than a preventive measure.
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 25079/19

  M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  This was because, (i) as was clear from the information available at the time of it making that decision (and for a considerable time thereafter) the applicant was not (and would not be) at risk of being expelled and subjected to treatment allegedly in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and (ii) the applicant could challenge before the domestic authorities any removal order issued in the future (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 74, ECHR 2016, with further references, and M.S.A. v. Russia [Committee], no. 29957/14 and 8 others, §§ 32-33, 12 December 2017).

• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 11556/17

  MAINOV v. RUSSIA

  Nor can it be found that the cumulative effect of the other aspects of the detention which the applicant complained about reached the threshold of severity required to characterise the treatment as inhuman or degrading within the meaning of Article 3 (compare with the Court's findings in respect of the same detention facility at the relevant period of time, Mskhiladze v. Russia, no. 47741/16, §§ 38-39, 13 February 2018, and contrast with the Court's findings in respect of a previous period, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 17-22, 31-35, 17 July 2014, and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, no. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 58, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23019/15

  ALIMURADOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has already found that the conditions of detention in the Krasnoye Selo facility at the material time amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, § 34, 17 July 2014, and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, no. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 58, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 8279/16

  MARDONSHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found that the conditions of detention in the Krasnoye Selo facility, as they obtained at least until late 2014, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, § 34, 17 July 2014, and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, no. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 58, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  A.A. v. RUSSIA

  Accordingly, the Court considers that the Article 5 complaint lodged by the applicant later in the proceedings does not constitute a mere elaboration on his original complaints to the Court, and therefore it is not appropriate to deal with this newly raised matter in the present case (see, in identical circumstances, M.S.A. and Others v. Russia, nos. 29957/14 and 8 others, § 60, 21 November 2017, and Rafig Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 45875/06, §§ 69-70, 6 December 2011, with further references).