Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DROZD ET JANOUSEK c. FRANCE ET ESPAGNE

  Art. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 56 MRK
  Exception préliminaire retenue (incompétence) Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement) Non-violation de l'Art. 5-1 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DROZD AND JANOUSEK v. FRANCE AND SPAIN

  Art. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. e, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 56 MRK
  Preliminary objection allowed (incompetence) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) No violation of Art. 5-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 12.12.1989 - 12747/87
• EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

  The Contracting States are, however, obliged to refuse their co-operation if it emerges that the conviction is the result of a flagrant denial of justice (see, mutatis mutandis, the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 45, para. 113).

  Thus, for example, a State may violate Articles 3 and/or 6 (art. 3, art. 6) of the Convention by ordering a person to be extradited or deported to a country, whether or not a member State of the Convention, where he runs a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to those provisions of the Convention (Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161); other hypothetical cases of an indirect effect of certain provisions of the Convention are also quite conceivable.

• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

  [2] Judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61.
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13343/87

  B. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

  The Court, referring to its consistent case-law (see, as the most recent authority, the B. v. France judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 232-C, p. 45, paras. 34-36), considers that it has jurisdiction to examine the objection, despite the contrary opinion of the Commission.

 
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

  (2) Judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50.
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

  It finds confirmation of this assurance in the decisions of some French courts: certain indictments divisions refuse to allow extradition of a person who has been convicted in his absence in a country where it is not possible for him to be retried on surrendering to justice (see, for example, the decision of the Limoges Court of Appeal, 15 May 1979, cited in the Bozano v. France judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 10, para. 18), and the Conseil d'État has declared the extradition of persons liable to the death penalty on the territory of the requesting State to be incompatible with French public policy (see, for instance, the Fidan judgment of 27 February 1987, with submissions by Government Commissioner Jean-Claude Bonichot, Recueil Dalloz Sirey 1987, jurisprudence, pp. 305-310, and the Gacem judgment of 14 December 1987, Recueil Lebon 1987, tables, p. 733).
• EGMR, 25.03.1992 - 13590/88

  CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

  [3] Judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233.
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.1992 - 12747/87

  [1] Judgment of 27 March 1987, Series A no. 114.