Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISKANDAROV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

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

  [DEU] Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  It requires at the same time that any deprivation of liberty be in keeping with the purpose of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see Bozano, cited above, § 54, and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 116, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not only to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress, in so far as possible, the effects thereof (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 95, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not only to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress, in so far as possible, the effects thereof (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII, and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 95, 11 October 2007).

 
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  In certain circumstances, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-XII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  In certain circumstances, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 179, ECHR 2007-XII).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, and Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, § 73, ECHR 2010-...).
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that it has already found that deprivation of liberty effected in a moving vehicle may be regarded as "detention" (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111) and sees no reason not to accept that the applicant was in fact placed in detention within the meaning attributed to this term in its case-law.
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  As to the Government's argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible ratione loci, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not govern the actions of States not Parties to it, nor does it purport to be a means of requiring the Contracting States to impose Convention standards on other States (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  It emphasises, however, that liability of an extraditing Contracting State under the Convention arises not from acts which occur outside its jurisdiction, but from actions imputable to that State which have as a direct consequence exposure of an individual to ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (see Soering, cited above, § 91, and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 69, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  In such a case Article 3 implies an obligation not to extradite the person in question to that country (see, mutatis mutandis, Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 102, Series A no. 215, and Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 46, ECHR 2005-VI).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

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

  ALTUN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02

  SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  In carrying out this exercise, and taking into account the applicant's extradition in January 2023, the Court would normally assess the existence of the risk primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, § 126, 23 September 2010).
• VG Freiburg, 08.09.2020 - A 8 K 10988/17
  Soweit der EGMR über die bürgerkriegsbedingten Gefahren in einem Staat zu befinden hatte, lässt sich seiner Rechtsprechung entnehmen, dass sich die von Art. 3 EMRK in den Blick genommene Gefahr im Grundsatz gegenüber der generellen Situation im Heimatstaat abheben muss und somit eine besondere persönliche Gefahr erforderlich ist (EGMR…, Urteil vom 30.10.1991 - 13163/87, 13164/87, 13165/87, 13447/87, 13448/87 [Vilvarajah and others v. The United Kingdom] -, Rn. 111; Urteil vom 23.09.2010 - 17185/05 [Iskandarov v. Russia] -, Rn. 127).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Par ailleurs, la Cour rappelle sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle l'article 5 § 1 s'applique également à une privation de liberté de très courte durée (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Brega et autres c. Moldova, no 61485/08, § 43, 24 janvier 2012, Shimovolos c. Russie, no 30194/09, §§ 48-50, 21 juin 2011, Iskandarov c. Russie, no 17185/05, § 140, 23 septembre 2010, Rantsev c. Chypre et Russie, no 25965/04, § 317, CEDH 2010, et Foka c. Turquie, no 28940/95, § 75, 24 juin 2008).

 
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 60990/14

  B.Y. c. GRÈCE

  Dans le contexte des allégations d'une détention non reconnue, d'une remise extraordinaire ou d'un refoulement et lorsque le requérant fournit un récit détaillé, spécifique et concordant des évènements en cause, la Cour est en principe satisfait qu'il existe un commencement de preuve en faveur de la version du requérant, en particulier quand il existe des preuves concordantes, sur la base desquelles la charge de la preuve revient au Gouvernement (El-Masri, précité, § 156, Al Nashiri c. Pologne, no 28761/11, § 393-396, 24 juillet 2014, Savriddin Dzhurayev c. Russie, no 71386/10, § 131, CEDH 2013 (extraits), et Iskandarov c. Russie, no 17185/05, § 109, 23 septembre 2010).

  En réalité, nous avons du mal à trouver une explication alternative plausible au récit présenté par le requérant, ce qui renforce encore la version des faits donnée par lui (voir, mutatis mutandis, Savriddin Dzhurayev, précité, § 137, Kadirova et autres c. Russie, no 5432/07, 27 mars 2012, 1skandarov c. Russie, no 17185/05, §§ 25-32, 23 septembre 2010).

• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 72508/13

  MERABISHVILI c. GÉORGIE

  69234/11 and 2 others, §§ 126-27, 11 February 2016); or the authorities manipulate procedures to prolong the detention for the same purpose (see Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, §§ 92-95), or to delay having to obtain judicial authorisation for the detention, as required under domestic law (see Oleksiy Mykhaylovych Zakharkin v. Ukraine, no. 1727/04, §§ 86-88, 24 June 2010), or to proceed with a disguised extradition (see Bozano v. France, cited above, §§ 59-60; Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, § 58, 31 March 2011; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 163 and 165, 18 April 2013; and Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, § 65, 15 January 2015); or the applicant is illegally abducted and surrendered to another State (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 109-15 and 148-51, 23 September 2010); or the citizens of another State are indiscriminately arrested with a view to being deported en masse as a measure of reprisal (see Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 185-86, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) - the Court finds an absence of a legitimate ground for the deprivation of liberty and accordingly a breach of Article 5 § 1.
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof, are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see, with further references, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, § 107, 23 September 2010; and El Masri, cited above, § 151).

  The Court notes at the outset that it must consider the present case in its context, having regard in particular to the recurrent disappearances of individuals subject to extradition from Russia to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, and their subsequent resurfacing in police custody in their home country (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov, cited above; and Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above; see also paragraphs 94 and 95 above).

• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  NIZOMKHON DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof, are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see, with further references, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, § 107, 23 September 2010; and El Masri, cited above, § 151).
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has found that such persons were at an increased risk of ill-treatment and that their extradition would give rise to a violation of Article 3. In the case of Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010, the Court found that the forced removal to Tajikistan of the applicant, who had been charged, inter alia, with terrorism and gangsterism in a religious context, was in breach of Russia's obligation to protect him against ill-treatment.
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Aux yeux de la cour, les arrêts de la Cour européenne rendus dans les affaires Gaforov (no 25404/09, 21 octobre 2010), Iskandarov (no 17185/05, 23 septembre 2010), et Khodzhayev (no 52466/08, 12 mai 2010) contre la Russie n'avaient constaté que des faits isolés de violation de la loi nationale et de la Convention à l'égard des intéressés, de sorte qu'ils ne pouvaient pas servir de base pour refuser l'extradition de M. Latipov.
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously concluded that a forcible transfer of an individual to a State that was not a party to the Convention by aircraft from Moscow or the surrounding region could not happen without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the Russian authorities (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 113-15, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, 14743/11, §§ 125-27, 2 October 2012; and Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 176, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

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

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  MAKHMUDZHAN ERGASHEV v. RUSSIA