Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TUKHTAMURODOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  The Court reiterates that 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 individual concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 125, ECHR 2008, and Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  The above findings do not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application before the Court and making use of the available procedures ‒ including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court ‒ in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011 and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  For a summary of the relevant general provisions of the Refugees Act of Russia (Law no. 4258-I of 19 February 1993), see Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 83-86, 14 November 2013.
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  The above findings do not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application before the Court and making use of the available procedures ‒ including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court ‒ in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011 and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 56478/13

  M.D. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  Since the applicant in the present case is still in Russia, the Court will proceed to evaluate the facts which were known at the time of the Court's consideration of the case (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 85-86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; M.D. v. Russia, (dec.), no. 56478/13, § 25, 10 June 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 23.03.2016 - 43611/11

  F.G. v. SWEDEN

  However, in cases as mentioned in paragraph 74 above where the risk of expulsion disappears prior to any decision on the admissibility of the application, the Court has sometimes declared the latter inadmissible because the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, inter alia, Atsaev v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 14021/10, 7 July 2015; Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015; Andreyev v. Estonia (dec.), no. 42987/09, 22 January 2013; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; and Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  For a summary of the relevant provisions on temporary asylum, see Tukhtamurodov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015, §§ 24-27).

  The Court has previously found that such solutions constitute part of an effective national remedy where the regularisation of an applicant's immigration status through the procedure of temporary asylum and the granting of a temporary residence permit on that basis was accompanied by the annulment of the extradition and/or expulsion orders (see Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, § 37, 20 January 2015, and, for similar conclusions in the context of Article 8, Ewalaka-Koumou v. Russia (dec.), no. 20953/03, 4 February 2010).

• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  They referred in this connection to the inadmissibility decision in the case of Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015.

• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  SHEYKH ALI v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  The Court reiterates that, in principle, a successful application for temporary asylum would be capable of suspending the enforcement of administrative removal (see S.K. v. Russia, cited above, § 94, and Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 31084/18

  K.G. v. RUSSIA

  Further legal provisions on temporary asylum were previously cited by the Court in the decision in the case of Tukhtamurodov v. Russia ((dec.), no. 21762/14, §§ 24-27, 20 January 2015).
• EGMR - 53980/15 (anhängig)

  H.R. v. RUSSIA

  For instance, as to the temporary asylum procedure, was the assessment of the applicant's situation based on sufficiently clear and foreseeable criteria that are wide enough to deal properly with the substance on an issue under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention? Did/does any specific provision of the Refugees Act or other legislation provide that a pending application for temporary asylum and a pending judicial review in respect of a refusal to grant such asylum each have an "automatic suspensive effect" vis-à-vis a final expulsion order (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 31, ECHR 2013; Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015, §§ 24-27; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 61, 16 April 2015; and L.M. and Others, cited above, §§ 67 and 100)? Do the absence of such an effect, the narrow scope of assessment, and the temporary nature of the solution arising from a refusal to grant temporary asylum make this remedy ineffective/not appropriate to be used before lodging an application before the Court?.
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  A.A. v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that, in principle, a successful application for temporary asylum would be capable of suspending the enforcement of administrative removal (see S.K. v. Russia, cited above, § 94, and Tukhtamurodov v. Russia (dec.), no. 21762/14, 20 January 2015).