Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TADZHIBAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 116, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  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, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice, see Abdulkhakov v. Russia (no. 14743/11, §§ 71-98, 2 October 2012).

• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  The Court will therefore assess whether it could be reasonably said that 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, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  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 reiterated in, among other cases, Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, §§ 92-100, 18 September 2012, with further references) and Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 67, ECHR 2005-I).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  For a number of relevant reports and items of information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

  GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that the current overall human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan remains highly problematic (see Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, § 61, 17 April 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 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).

  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.

• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29343/18

  N.M. v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  Moreover, the domestic courts' reliance in on the assurances of the Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, § 46, 1 December 2015).

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 2236/16

  S.S. v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, the domestic courts' reliance in certain cases on the assurances of the Tajik and Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, § 46, 1 December 2015).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 59609/17

  B.U. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, the domestic courts' reliance on the assurances of the Tajik and Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, § 46, 1 December 2015).
• EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 35332/17

  S.S. v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

  Moreover, the domestic courts' reliance in certain cases on the assurances of the Tajik and Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, § 46, 1 December 2015).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 31189/15

  T.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, the domestic courts' reliance on the assurances of the Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, § 46, 1 December 2015).
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 48917/15

  I. U. v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, the domestic courts' unquestioning reliance on the assurances of the Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, § 46, 1 December 2015).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 61689/16

  A.N. v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  Moreover, the domestic courts' reliance on the assurances of the Tajik and Uzbek authorities, despite their formulation in standard terms, appears tenuous, given that similar assurances have consistently been considered unsatisfactory by the Court in the past (see, for example, Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 149-50, 2 October 2012, and Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, § 46, 1 December 2015).
• 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).