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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• 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, 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, 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, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03

  A.D. c. SUISSE

  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, 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, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  ETANJI 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  AUAD v. BULGARIA

  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, 02.02.2016 - 71776/12

  N.TS. AND OTHERS 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, 28.09.2010 - 44448/08

  DRISSI c. ITALIE

  Dans ces conditions, il échet de constater que la mesure d'expulsion à l'encontre du requérant n'a pas été simplement suspendue par les autorités italiennes en raison de l'application de l'article 39, mais a été privée de toute base légale (a contrario, Abdulazhon Isakov c. Russie, no 14049/08, 8 juillet 2010).