Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R. v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (23)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  It recognises, however, that it may prove difficult for detainees to obtain evidence of ill-treatment by their warders (see, mutatis mutandis, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 125, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  As regards the legal fees, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 5, 300, plus any tax which may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount, to be paid to his representative's bank account.
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of judgments concerning Russia on account of the absence of any domestic legal provision which could have allowed an applicant to initiate a judicial review of his detention pending expulsion (see Azimov, cited above, § 153; Kim, cited above, §§ 39-43; Rakhimov, cited above, §§ 148-50; Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, §§ 57-60, 15 January 2015; and L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, §§ 140-42, 15 October 2015).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  The burden of proof is then on the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the victim (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  However, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  The Court drew strong inferences from the mere fact of the investigative authority's refusal to open a criminal investigation into credible allegations of serious ill-treatment while in custody, regarding it as indicative of the State's failure to comply with its obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, §§ 135-36, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  Noting that his detention had largely exceeded the maximum penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty under the CAO and referring to the case of Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, §§ 172-73, 18 April 2013), the applicant claimed that his detention pending expulsion was of a punitive nature rather than of a preventive one.
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  The Court will consider firstly whether there was a possibility of effective supervision of unlawful or arbitrary detention and secondly whether the applicant's detention was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention (see, with further references, Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, § 38, 17 July 2014).
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 24271/03

  GEORGIY BYKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15

  However, where allegations are made under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see Georgiy Bykov v. Russia, no. 24271/03, § 51, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 62892/12

  AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 21120/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

  RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  KHAMRAKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

  GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 67667/09

  "Homosexuellen-Propaganda"-Gesetz in Russland: Diskriminierend - und …

  However, in the absence of any submissions clarifying the potential benefit of using this procedure in relation to the complaints at issue, it is not ready to treat the Government's remark as a plea of nonexhaustion of effective domestic remedies that would require its assessment (see R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, § 50, 26 January 2016).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  The Court previously found violations of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the same statutory framework for detention of foreigners with a view to administrative removal (see Azimov, §§ 160-174; Kim, §§ 46-57; and L.M. and Others v. Russia, §§ 147-52, all cited above; R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, §§ 103-107, 26 January 2016; compare Chkhikvishvili v. Russia, no. 43348/13, §§ 30-32, 25 October 2016).
• EGMR, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  Kirgisistan: nicht mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit drohende …

  118. The Court notes that between 2012 and 2016 it considered nine cases concerning extraditions of ethnic Uzbeks from Russia to Kyrgyzstan (see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, 17 April 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, no. 42351/13, 17 July 2014; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, 24 July 2014; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, 15 October 2015; Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, 22 October 2015; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; and R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016).

• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

  T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA

  The Court has repeatedly held that the removal of ethnic Uzbeks from Russia to Kyrgyzstan would violate Article 3 (see, for example, U.N. v. Russia, no. 14348/15, 26 July 2016; R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, 22 October 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, 15 October 2015; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, 24 July 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 2335/09

  TKACHUK c. RUSSIE

  De manière globale, la Cour estime que les démarches entreprises par le service du procureur à la suite du dépôt de la plainte de la mère du requérant étaient superficielles et qu'elles n'ont pas constitué une enquête effective au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention (R. c. Russie, no 11916/15, §§ 84-92, 26 janvier 2016, et Lyapin, précité, §§ 133-140).
• EGMR, 30.09.2021 - 29662/13

  SHOYGO v. UKRAINE

  The Government did not allege that at the relevant time, prior to the 2017 reform (see paragraph 15 above), there was any procedure in domestic law which would allow for review of lawfulness of detention on grounds which evolved after the initial detention was ordered, such as developments in expulsion proceedings (compare, for example, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 151-55, 18 April 2013, and R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, §§ 99-101, 26 January 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 53494/09

  ORUDZHOV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, § 106, 26 January 2016; Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, § 73, 26 February 2015; Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, § 191, 28 May 2014; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 171, 18 April 2013, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 80).