Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,22407
EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04 (https://dejure.org/2007,22407)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.01.2007 - 1948/04 (https://dejure.org/2007,22407)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Januar 2007 - 1948/04 (https://dejure.org/2007,22407)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,22407) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)

  • Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration

    EMRK Art. 3
    Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, menschenrechtswidrige Behandlung, Beurteilungszeitpunkt, Entscheidungszeitpunkt, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, EGMR, Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, EGMR, ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SALAH SHEEKH v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 3 (applicant's expulsion to Somalia) No violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 41 (englisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SALAH SHEEKH c. PAYS-BAS

    Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 3 (expulsion du requérant vers la Somalie) Non-violation de l'art. 13 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 41 (französisch)

  • Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte PDF

    (englisch)

  • juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (142)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

    VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04
    In a case concerning an Afghan national, and with reference to this Court's judgment in the case of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215), the Administrative Jurisdiction Division held in a decision of 7 November 2003 (JV 2004/17) that, even if an alien is to be expelled to a country where organised, large-scale human rights violations are committed against a group to which that alien belongs, he or she will have to make out a convincing case that specific facts and circumstances exist relating to him or her personally in order to be eligible for the protection offered by Article 3 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

    In such circumstances, Article 3 implies an obligation not to expel the individual to that country (see Soering, cited above, §§ 90-91; Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 103; Ahmed, cited above, § 39; H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 34, Reports 1997-III; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 38, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 8319/07

    SUFI AND ELMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Equally, an applicant cannot be regarded as having failed to exhaust domestic remedies if he or she can show, by providing relevant domestic case-law or any other suitable evidence, that an available remedy which he or she has not used was bound to fail (Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 156, ECHR 2003-VI; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 121 et seq., ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).

    The Court recalls that Article 3 does not, as such, preclude Contracting States from placing reliance on the existence of an internal flight alternative in their assessment of an individual's claim that a return to his country of origin would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by that provision (Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 141, ECHR 2007-I (extracts), Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 98, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V and Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, §§ 67 - 68, ECHR 2001-II).

  • EGMR, 28.02.2008 - 37201/06

    Saadi ./. Italien

    125. However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, §§ 90-91; Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 103; Ahmed, cited above, § 39; H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, § 34; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 38, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, 11 January 2007).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht