Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RUSTAMOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-f - Extradition) No violation ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  These standards imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case (see Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 112-21 above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI; and Gaforov, cited above, §§ 143-44).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94), and the right to political asylum is not explicitly protected by either the Convention or its Protocols (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007).

 
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  Since the nature of the Contracting States" responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94), and the right to political asylum is not explicitly protected by either the Convention or its Protocols (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85

  KOLOMPAR c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  Further, the Court cannot overlook the fact that the applicant's own conduct gave rise to an aggregate delay of three months (see, in so far as relevant, Kolompar v. Belgium, 24 September 1992, § 42, Series A no. 235-C), since the applicant only appealed against the first-instance judgment of 12 November 2010 in February 2011 (see paragraph 62 above).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicating on or establishing the responsibility of the receiving country, whether under general international law, under the Convention or otherwise (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161).

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the grounds of detention relied on by the Government, the place and conditions of detention must be appropriate, and the length of the detention must not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008; Azimov, cited above, § 161; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 150, 3 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the grounds of detention relied on by the Government, the place and conditions of detention must be appropriate, and the length of the detention must not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 150, 3 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  Elle réaffirme qu'exiger d'une personne qu'elle produise des preuves « incontestables'd'un risque de mauvais traitements dans le pays de renvoi consisterait à lui demander de prouver l'existence d'un évènement futur, ce qui est impossible, et placerait sur elle un fardeau disproportionné (voir, dans le contexte de l'article 3 de la Convention, Rustamov c. Russie, no 11209/10, § 117, 3 juillet 2012).

 
• EGMR, 18.11.2020 - 54155/16

  SLOVÉNIE c. CROATIE

  It has also never been asserted that these alleged violations were not attributable to the authorities of the respondent High Contracting Party (see, a contrario, Naku v. Lithuania and Sweden, no. 26126/07, §§ 78-79, 8 November 2016; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, §§ 183-184, 3 July 2012; Djokaba Lambi Longa v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 33917/12, §§ 68-84, 9 October 2012, or Sotirov and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 13999/05, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 37610/18

  Polen darf Häftling nicht nach China ausliefern

  To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the ground of detention relied on by the Government; the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 150, 3 July 2012, and Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2), no. 10112/16, § 97, 25 June 2019).
• EGMR - 55036/16 (anhängig)

  AKISKALI v. RUSSIA

  Was the applicant's detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention? In particular, was it lawful in the sense of being free from arbitrariness and compatible with the requirement that it should be carried out in good faith and be closely connected to the grounds of detention invoked by the Government (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 161, 18 April 2013; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, 3 July 2012, with further references)? Did the domestic courts verify the applicant's version of events, examined the operative K. and the video recording made by the applicant? Did they address the applicant's grounds of appeal?.
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 58182/14

  K.I. v. RUSSIA

  To avoid being arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the grounds of detention relied on by the Government, the place and conditions of detention must be appropriate, and the length of the detention must not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.13229/03, § 74, ECHR 2008, and Rustamov v. Russia, no.11209/10, § 150, 3 July 2012, with further references).