Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Abdulkhakov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Neu Zitiert selbst (32)

• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see, among other authorities, Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 79, ECHR 2005-IV, and Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 21689/93, § 426, 6 April 2004; see also Rule 44C of the Rules of Court).

  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 7, 800, to be paid to the representatives" bank account.

• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement must - as with the reasonable-time stipulation in Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 - be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham, cited above, § 31).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  However, as has been pointed out in subsequent judgments, this rule applies only to the initial decision depriving a person of his liberty; it does not purport to deal with an ensuing period of detention in which new issues affecting the lawfulness of the detention might arise (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 56, Series A no. 114).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  However, where automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been instituted, the decisions on the lawfulness of detention must follow at "reasonable intervals" (see, among others, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, §§ 75 and 77, Series A no. 244, and Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, no. 59512/00, § 42, 21 June 2005).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A, and Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 33, ECHR 2005-XII).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  This is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 59, 15 January 2009, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  Thus, as regards detention after conviction by a competent court in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (a), the Court has accepted as "reasonable" periods of less than a year between reviews of detention of discretionary life prisoners and rejected periods of more than one year (see Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X; Hirst v. the United Kingdom, no. 40787/98, § 39, 24 July 2001; and Blackstock, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98

  HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  Thus, as regards detention after conviction by a competent court in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (a), the Court has accepted as "reasonable" periods of less than a year between reviews of detention of discretionary life prisoners and rejected periods of more than one year (see Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X; Hirst v. the United Kingdom, no. 40787/98, § 39, 24 July 2001; and Blackstock, cited above, § 44).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 44872/98

  MAGALHAES PEREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  Similarly, as regards detention of persons of unsound mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) ordered at the close of criminal proceedings during which the charges against them had been proved but they had been found not criminally responsible for their actions due to a mental illness, intervals between reviews of less than a year have usually been considered acceptable, while longer intervals have not been considered "reasonable" for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 (see Herczegfalvy, cited above, § 77; Silva Rocha v. Portugal, 15 November 1996, § 31, Reports 1996-V; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, §§ 45 - 51, ECHR 2002-I; and compare with Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal (no. 2), no. 15996/02, §§ 27-33, 20 December 2005).
• EGMR, 20.12.2005 - 15996/02

  MAGALHAES PEREIRA c. PORTUGAL (N° 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  Similarly, as regards detention of persons of unsound mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) ordered at the close of criminal proceedings during which the charges against them had been proved but they had been found not criminally responsible for their actions due to a mental illness, intervals between reviews of less than a year have usually been considered acceptable, while longer intervals have not been considered "reasonable" for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 (see Herczegfalvy, cited above, § 77; Silva Rocha v. Portugal, 15 November 1996, § 31, Reports 1996-V; Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal, no. 44872/98, §§ 45 - 51, ECHR 2002-I; and compare with Magalhães Pereira v. Portugal (no. 2), no. 15996/02, §§ 27-33, 20 December 2005).
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 50278/99

  AOULMI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 22426/10

  KESHMIRI v. TURKEY (No. 2)
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 48205/09

  AL HANCHI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 12572/08

  S.P. c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 67175/01

  REINPRECHT c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 01.06.2004 - 24561/94

  ALTUN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02

  SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  DZHAKSYBERGENOV (AKA JAXYBERGENOV) v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 33, ECHR 2005-XII), if decisions on the lawfulness of detention follow at "reasonable intervals" (see, among other authorities, Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, no. 59512/00, § 42, 21 June 2005, and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 209, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Aboya Boa Jean v. Malta, no. 62676/16, § 76, 2 April 2019), if decisions on the lawfulness of detention follow at "reasonable intervals" (see, among other authorities, Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, no. 59512/00, § 42, 21 June 2005, and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 209, 2 October 2012).
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 06.07.2015 - C-237/15

  Lanigan

  84 - Vgl. EGMR, Van Droogenbroeck/Belgien, 24. Juni 1982, Serie A Nr. 50, § 46, Weeks/Vereinigtes Königreich, 2. März 1987, Serie A Nr. 114, § 56, und Abdulkhakov/Russland, 2. Oktober 2012, Nr. 14743/11, § 208.

  85 - EGMR, Weeks/Vereinigtes Königreich, 2. März 1987, Serie A Nr. 114, § 58, Ismoilov u. a./Russland, 24. April 2008, § 146, sowie Abdulkhakov/Russland, 2. Oktober 2012, Nr. 14743/11, § 208.

  89 - Vgl. EGMR, Abdulkhakov/Russland, 2. Oktober 2012, Nr. 14743/11, § 208.

 
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 7997/08

  KUTTNER v. AUSTRIA

  The Court must also examine whether any new relevant factors that have arisen in the interval between periodic reviews have been assessed, without unreasonable delay, by a court having jurisdiction to decide whether or not the detention has become "unlawful" in the light of these new factors (see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 215, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (iii) lawyers engaged by the IHR under the Right to Asylum programme had represented applicants in a significant number of cases before the Court, with over fifty judgments delivered so far, including such key cases as Z.A. and Others v. Russia ([GC] (nos. 61411/15 and 3 others, 21 November 2019); Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, 25 April 2013); Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013); and Abdulkhakov v. Russia (no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012);.
• EGMR, 08.03.2018 - 22692/15

  PATALAKH v. GERMANY

  Der Maßstab "innerhalb kurzer Frist" ist weniger streng, wenn es um das Rechtsmittelverfahren geht (Abdulkhakov./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 14743/11, Rdnr. 198, 2. Oktober 2012).
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  LORENZ v. AUSTRIA

  The Court must also examine whether any new relevant factors that have arisen in the interval between periodic reviews have been assessed, without unreasonable delay, by a court having jurisdiction to decide whether or not the detention has become "unlawful" in the light of these new factors (see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 215, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 82348/17

  D.S. v. ARMENIA

  However, it has not been shown that in the present case the authorities took reasonable measures to comply with the speed requirement under Article 5 § 4. Hence, the period of the review of the applicant's appeal of 27 December 2017 was excessive (see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 198-200, 2 October 2012, and the case-law references cited in paragraph 24 above).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a toutefois relevé à plusieurs reprises dans des affaires qui concernaient des cas d'extradition que les autorités russes interprètent l'article 1 § 1-1 de la loi sur les réfugiés d'une manière stricte, excluant son application dans le cas d'allégations d'un risque d'être soumis à de mauvais traitements pour des raisons autres que celles qu'il énumère (voir, à titre d'exemples, Turgunov c. Russie, no 15590/14, §§ 20-24, 22 octobre 2015, Khalikov c. Russie, no 66373/13, §§ 21-24, 26 février 2015, Mamazhonov c. Russie, no 17239/13, §§ 42-47, 23 octobre 2014, Mamadaliyev c. Russie, no 5614/13, §§ 29-33, 24 juillet 2014, Kadirzhanov et Mamashev c. Russie, nos 42351/13 et 47823/13, §§ 53, 60 et 63, 17 juillet 2014, Ermakov c. Russie, no 43165/10, §§ 30-42, 7 novembre 2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev, précité, §§ 27-29, Makhmudzhan Ergashev c. Russie, no 49747/11, §§ 20-23 et 28-29, 16 octobre 2012, et Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, §§ 33-39, 2 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 46130/14

  VENKEN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  De plus, en vertu de cette disposition, toute personne privée de liberté doit pouvoir introduire un recours afin qu'un « tribunal'décide « à bref délai'si la privation de liberté est devenue irrégulière eu égard à de nouveaux facteurs survenus après la décision initiale de son placement en détention (Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, § 215, 2 octobre 2012, et Kuttner c. Autriche, no 7997/08, § 37, 16 juillet 2015).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10

  DIMO DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE
• EGMR - 49975/15 (anhängig)

  RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 54436/14

  KLIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.07.2015 - 66166/13

  NASSR ALLAH v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  A.R. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 55447/22 (anhängig)

  KOC v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 66252/14

  ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

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

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 35237/14

  YERMAKOVICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 63019/10

  E.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM