Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TURGUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.02.1983 - 7525/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  That being so, the Court rejects his claims (see Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, § 92, 22 November 2007, and Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), 24 February 1983, § 22 in fine, Series A no. 59).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or for their unfettered access to detention facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 132-33, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, for a similar approach, Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, § 79, 21 May 2015).

• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 116, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  For a summary of relevant domestic law and practice see Abdulkhakov v. Russia (no. 14743/11, §§ 71-78, 83-93, and 95-98, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  The Court will therefore assess whether the applicant faces a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  The Court will examine the merits of this part of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 in the light of the applicable general principles set out in, among other cases, Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, §§ 92-100, 18 September 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that the current overall human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan remains highly problematic (see, mutatis mutandis, Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, § 51, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  KHAMRAKULOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  For a number of relevant reports and items of information concerning Kyrgyzstan, see Khamrakulov v. Russia (no. 68894/13, §§ 38-45, 16 April 2015, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  In a number of previous cases concerning extradition to Kyrgyzstan it found that the situation in the south of the country was characterised by torture and other ill-treatment of ethnic Uzbeks by law-enforcement officers (see Khamrakulov v. Russia, cited above, § 65; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, § 60, 24 July 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, § 91, 17 July 2014; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, cited above, § 61; and Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, cited above, §§ 71-73).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

  GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

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

  The Court has in the past reviewed the relevant information on the situation in Kyrgyzstan, and summaries were provided in Tadzhibayev v. Russia (no. 17724/14, §§ 19-26, 1 December 2015, with further references) and Turgunov v. Russia (no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015).

  In a number of judgments concerning extradition to Kyrgyzstan of ethnic Uzbeks charged with crimes allegedly committed during the 2010 events, the Court similarly established that the applicants faced a real risk of ill-treatment in connection with their ethnic origin (see, for example, Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, §§ 69-73, 16 October 2012; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, §§ 61-62, 17 April 2014; and Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015).

  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.

  In the present situation, I do not see any serious reasons to depart from the former case-law of the Court related to the extradition of ethnic Uzbeks to Kyrgyzstan (see among other authorities those cited in paragraph 85 of the judgment: Makkmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, §§ 69-73, 16 October 2012; Garyratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, §§ 61-62, 17 April 2014; and Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015).

• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  Therefore, the Court does not rule out that this form of temporary protection could be an "effective" solution in the applicant's situation, given that his grievance under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention was based on the facts arising from the ongoing and particularly grave situation of hostilities in his home country (see, by way of comparison, Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, §§ 46-61, 16 April 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, §§ 44 and 49, 15 October 2015, and Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, §§ 33 and 36, 22 October 2015).
• EGMR, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  Kirgisistan: nicht mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit drohende …

  The Court has in the past reviewed the relevant information on the situation in Kyrgyzstan, and summaries were provided in Tadzhibayev v. Russia (no. 17724/14, §§ 19-26, 1 December 2015, with further references), and Turgunov v. Russia (no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015).

  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, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  While the Court acknowledges the thorough scrutiny undertaken by the domestic courts of the assurances given by Kazakhstan in relation to the non-imposition of the death penalty (see paragraphs 103-05 above), and takes note of Kazakhstan's expressed willingness to cooperate with efforts to verify compliance with those assurances; however, it remains to be considered whether the risk of torture and/or ill-treatment to which the applicant would be exposed following his extradition has been sufficiently mitigated by those assurances (see Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, § 55, 22 October 2015).
• 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, 26.07.2016 - 14348/15

  U.N. v. RUSSIA

  For a number of relevant reports and items of information concerning Kyrgyzstan, in particular, the human rights situation in 2011-2015, see Tadzhibayev v. Russia (no. 17724/14, §§ 19-26, 1 December 2015, with further references) and Turgunov v. Russia (no. 15590/14, § 32, 22 October 2015).