Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDULAZHON ISAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Uzbekistan) Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 13+3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there are substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-V, which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France; see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there are substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-V, which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France; see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  The accessibility of a remedy implies, inter alia, that the circumstances voluntarily created by the authorities must be such as to afford applicants a realistic possibility of using the remedy (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 46 and 55, ECHR 2002-I).

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  In a number of its recent judgments the Court has already found that the provisions of the Russian law governing detention of persons with a view to extradition were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (see, for example, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 72, 11 October 2007, Ismoilov and Others, cited above § 142, Muminov, cited above, § 122, and Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99

  ANDRIC v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  As to the specific category of cases involving expulsion measures, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, § 46, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  The Court also takes note of the Government's reference to the effect that at the time of the applicant's arrest and his subsequent detention between 6 March 2008 and 20 April 2009 (see paragraphs 12-17 above) the authorities had been fully aware of the fact that the issue of his Russian citizenship had not been finally resolved and that the Russian legislation excludes, in non-ambiguous terms, the extradition of Russian nationals (see, mutatis mutandis, Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  In a number of its recent judgments the Court has already found that the provisions of the Russian law governing detention of persons with a view to extradition were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (see, for example, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 72, 11 October 2007, Ismoilov and Others, cited above § 142, Muminov, cited above, § 122, and Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01

  PELLUMBI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  As to the specific category of cases involving expulsion measures, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, § 46, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 42216/98

  BENAMAR ET AUTRES contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andric v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  ETANJI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03

  A.D. c. SUISSE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  ISAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Background information and the Court's judgment in Mr Isakov's earlier case (Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010).

  On 8 July 2010 the Court delivered a judgment in Mr Isakov's case (see Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010) where it found, inter alia, that in the event of the extradition order against Mr Isakov being enforced, there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

  The authority form submitted by Ms Yermolayeva was completed by Mr Isakov in connection with a previous application lodged with the Court in 2008 (no. 14049/08, referred to above), and cannot constitute a valid form of authority in the present case, which relates to facts which occurred after the judgment in that case.

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  [ENG]

  It notes, firstly, that the order for his expulsion, having been upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court, is final and enforceable (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 358, ECHR 2005-III; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 100, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 90, 29 July 2010; and Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876/08, § 63, 17 June 2010, and contrast Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; Shamayev and Others, cited above, §§ 354-55, ECHR 2005-III; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 60, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  In its recent judgments concerning the same subject, after examining the latest available information, the Court pointed out that there was no concrete evidence of any fundamental improvement in that area (see Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 109, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 93, 8 July 2010; and Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 71, 4 November 2010).

• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  In recent judgments concerning the same subject and covering the period after 2007 until recently, after having examined the latest available information, the Court has found that there was no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 109, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 93, 8 July 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 71, 4 November 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously considered that there was a serious issue relating to ill-treatment of detainees charged in relation to their membership of and activities within such organisations, groups or informal associations, sometimes with an intertwined religious and political agenda (see, for instance, Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 110, 8 July 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 72, 4 November 2010; and Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, § 113, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 71776/12

  TSIKLAURI v. GEORGIA

  In those circumstances, the Court considers that the children may claim to be victims within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 358, ECHR 2005-III, and Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 100, 8 July 2010).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Finally, in the night of 22 July 2014 Mr Isakov disappeared without trace; in his earlier application, the Court also held that his extradition to Uzbekistan would be in breach of Article 3 (see Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Relying on Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's case-law (he referred to Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008; Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, 29 July 2010; Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, 4 November 2010; and Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, 8 November 2011), he argued that members of Hizb ut-Tahrir were at an increased risk of ill-treatment.
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]

  The applicant further stated that in a number of recent judgments concerning similar situations, including the cases of Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia (no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010) and Karimov v. Russia (no. 54219/08, 29 July 2010), the Court acknowledged that the problem of ill-treatment of detainees in Uzbekistan remained enduring and that there was no indication of any fundamental improvement in that area.
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 27843/11

  [ENG]

  Finally, the court found, with reference to the Court's case-law in the cases of Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008), Muminov v. Russia (no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008), Yuldashev v. Russia (no. 1248/09, 8 July 2010), and Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia (no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010), that a general problem of ill-treatment of detainees in Uzbekistan still persisted in the country and diplomatic assurances could not offer a reliable guarantee against it.
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 74759/13

  FOZIL NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.09.2010 - 44448/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 38851/09

  [ENG]