Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.D. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  A.D. and Others v. Turkey

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  The Court reiterates that anyone entitled to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of his detention decided cannot make effective use of that right unless he is promptly and adequately informed of the reasons relied on to deprive him of his liberty (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 413 and 432, ECHR 2005-III; and Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 141).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  In cases where applicants have faced expulsion or extradition the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  The findings on the admissibility of the substantive claim will evidently play an important role in determining whether a substantive claim is arguable in a given case (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131, and Ivan Atanasov v. Bulgaria, no. 12853/03, §§ 100-101, 2 December 2010).

 
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 41416/08

  M. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  It is, a fortiori, inconsistent with Article 13 for such measures to be executed before the national authorities have duly examined their compatibility with the Convention (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 153, 11 January 2007; and M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41416/08, § 129, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 31.07.2003 - 50389/99

  DORAN v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  The effectiveness of the remedial action was thus undermined by its excessive duration (see Doran v. Ireland, no. 50389/99, § 57, ECHR 2003-X; and De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 81, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  The Court notes that although the respondent State did not raise any objection as to the Court's competence ratione personae in relation to these complaints, this issue calls for consideration by the Court proprio motu (see M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 115, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  It is, a fortiori, inconsistent with Article 13 for such measures to be executed before the national authorities have duly examined their compatibility with the Convention (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002-I; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 153, 11 January 2007; and M. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 41416/08, § 129, 26 July 2011).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 29094/09

  A.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court also reiterates that, where a complaint concerns allegations that a person's expulsion would expose him or her to a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the effectiveness of the remedy for the purposes of Article 13 requires imperatively - in view of the importance the Court attaches to Article 3 and given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the risk of torture or ill-treatment alleged materialised - that that complaint be subject to independent and rigorous scrutiny by a national authority and that this remedy has automatic suspensive effect (see the Grand Chamber's statement of the law on Articles 13 and 3 in De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, § 82 with further references, ECHR 2012; Mohammed v. Austria, no. 2283/12, § 72 with further references, 6 June 2013; and A.D. and Others v. Turkey, no. 22681/09, § 95 with further references, 22 July 2014).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 60079/14

  A.S.R. v. TURKEY

  The Court notes that although the respondent State did not raise any objection as to the Court's competence ratione personae in relation to the applicant's complaints, the issue of his victim status calls for an examination proprio motu by the Court in the present circumstances (see M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 115, ECHR 2013 (extracts), and A.D. and Others v. Turkey, no. 22681/09, § 78, 22 July 2014), having particular regard to the new safeguards against unlawful deportation that have been introduced by the Foreigners and International Protection Act (see Babajanov v. Turkey (no. 49867/08, § 70, 10 May 2016).