Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ismailov v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  The Court notes that it is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy it that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 76, ECHR 1999-V), whilst in the present case the Government confined themselves to a mere reference to the relevant CAO provisions.
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 7, 750 covering costs under all heads (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  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).

• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  However, the implementation of an interim measure indicated by the Court does not in itself have any bearing on whether the deprivation of liberty to which that individual may be subjected complies with Article 5 § 1 (see Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 74, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  Even where the purpose of the detention is legitimate, its length should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Azimov, cited above, § 166, and Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, § 162, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 48205/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  In a number of cases where the respondent State refrained from deporting applicants in compliance with a request made by the Court under Rule 39, the Court has been prepared to accept that the expulsion proceedings were temporarily suspended but nevertheless were "in progress", and that therefore no violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) had occurred (see, for instance, Al Hanchi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 48205/09, §§ 49-51, 15 November 2011, and Umirov, cited above, §§ 138-42).That being said, suspension of the domestic proceedings due to the indication of an interim measure by the Court should not result in a situation where the applicant languishes in prison for an unreasonably long period (see Azimov, cited above, § 171).
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 39417/07

  ALIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  The Court reiterates that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if carried out under a court order (see Alim v. Russia, no. 39417/07, § 55, 27 September 2011).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  The Court reiterates its constant approach that, whilst a person's failure to seek asylum immediately after arrival in another country may be relevant for the assessment of the credibility of his or her allegations, it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for expulsion (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 91, 22 September 2009).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  It has found, with reference to materials from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 141, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 20110/13

  The applicant must only be required to show, with reference to specific facts relevant to him and to the class of people he belongs to, that there was a high likelihood that he would be ill-treated (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 128, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has been previously confronted with other cases concerning removals from the Russian Federation to Uzbekistan of those accused by the Uzbek authorities of criminal, religious and political activities (see most recently, among many other authorities, Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, 7 November 2013; Kasymakhunov, cited above; and Ismailov v. Russia, no. 20110/13, 17 April 2014).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 78386/14

  SAAKYAN v. RUSSIA

  Starting with the Azimov judgment, the Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the absence of any domestic legal provision which could have allowed the applicant to bring proceedings for judicial review of his detention pending expulsion in the light of new factors which emerged subsequent to the decision on his initial placement in custody (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 153-54, 18 April 2013; Ismailov v. Russia, no. 20110/13, §§ 96-102, 17 April 2014; Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, §§ 199-204, 28 May 2014; Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 64, 26 June 2014; Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, §§ 148-150, 10 July 2014, and Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, § 59, 15 January 2015).