Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Struck out of the list (Art. 37) Striking out applications-general;(Art. 37-1) Striking out applications;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment;Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of ...
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ c. ROYAUME-UNI
Radiation du rôle (Art. 37) Radiation du rôle-général;(Art. 37-1) Radiation du rôle;Non-violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Peine dégradante;Peine inhumaine;Extradition) (Conditionnel) (États-Unis d"Amérique) ...
Besprechungen u.ä.
- verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)
Mut zur Selbstkorrektur in Straßburg: Der EGMR ändert seine Linie zu Auslieferung bei drohender lebenslanger Haftstrafe
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 3 MRK
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (14) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07
HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012 (see paragraph 35 below).In January 2012 the Chamber, in Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), found that the applicant's extradition would not breach his rights under Article 3; such a sentence would not be "grossly disproportionate" and Mr Harkins had not demonstrated that there was a real risk of treatment reaching the Article 3 threshold as a result of his sentence were he to be extradited.
In his view, Trabelsi was a logical and clear continuation of the principles established by the Court in Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and not, as the High Court judge suggested, an "unexplained departure" from Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012).
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
Relying on Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 161), a majority of their Lordships (Lord Hoffmann, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell) found that in the extradition context, a distinction had to be drawn between torture and lesser forms of ill-treatment.The Court has repeatedly stated that as torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are prohibited in absolute terms, the extradition of a person by a Contracting State can raise problems under Article 3 of the Convention and therefore engage the responsibility of the sending State where there are serious grounds to believe that that person would run a real risk of being subjected to such ill-treatment in the requesting country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161; see also López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 102, 12 December 2017).
- EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 20672/15
FINDIKOGLU v. GERMANY
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
In this regard, it is for the applicant to demonstrate that such a penalty would be imposed (see López Elorza, cited above, § 107 and Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.), no. 20672/15, § 37, 7 June 2016).
- EGMR - 49975/15 (anhängig)
RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
However, that obligation is subject to the same State's obligation to respect the absolute nature of the prohibition under Article 3 of the Convention (see Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia [GC], nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15, § 94, 29 April 2022). - EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15
LÓPEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
The Court has repeatedly stated that as torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are prohibited in absolute terms, the extradition of a person by a Contracting State can raise problems under Article 3 of the Convention and therefore engage the responsibility of the sending State where there are serious grounds to believe that that person would run a real risk of being subjected to such ill-treatment in the requesting country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161; see also López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 102, 12 December 2017). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
It makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15, even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 163, Series A no. 25; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 59, ECHR 2001-XI; and Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 335, ECHR 2005-III). - EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02
CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
It makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15, even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 163, Series A no. 25; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, § 59, ECHR 2001-XI; and Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 335, ECHR 2005-III). - EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02
IORGOV v. BULGARIA (no. 2)
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20
In Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 36295/02, §§ 51-60, 2 September 2010) the Court subsequently confirmed that the hope of Presidential clemency in the form of either a pardon or a commutation of sentence was sufficient to establish a prospect of release.
- EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21
MATTHEWS v. ROMANIA and 2 other applications
On 12 December 2022, following a request by the Government, who referred to the adoption by the Court of the judgment in the case of Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom [GC] (no. 22854/20, 3 November 2022), the Court lifted the interim measure indicated on 5 May 2021 in respect of both applicants.The relevant US Sentencing Guidelines, the mechanisms to seek leniency or a reduced sentence, as well as statistical information on the imposition of life sentences in the Federal System are set out in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 57-63, 3 November 2022).
Rn. 77 Following the adoption by the Court of the judgment in the case of Sanchez-Sanchez ([GC], no. 22854/20, 3 November 2022), the applicants argued that they had adduced sufficient evidence, in the form of expert evidence, to meet the evidential burden required by the first limb of the test set out in that case.
- EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21
LAZAR v. ROMANIA
On 12 December 2022, following a request by the Government who referred to the adoption by the Court of the judgment in the case of Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 22854/20, 3 November 2022), the Court lifted the interim measure indicated on 5 May 2021.Rn. 51 The relevant US Sentencing Guidelines, the mechanisms to seek leniency or a reduced sentence, as well as statistical information on the imposition of life sentences in the Federal System are set out in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 57-63, 3 November 2022).
Following the adoption by the Court of the judgment in Sanchez-Sanchez (([GC], no. 22854/20, 3 November 2022), the applicant argued that he had adduced sufficient evidence, in the form of expert evidence, to discharge the evidential burden required by the first limb of the test set out in that case.
- EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 49134/20
LANG v. UKRAINE
He would also have at his disposal the following post-conviction review mechanisms: (i) collateral review (a request for a review of the sentence on the basis that, for example, the sentence was imposed in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence); (ii) a reduction of the sentence to reflect the substantial assistance provided by a convicted person after his or her conviction; (iii) compassionate release (a reduction of the defendant's term of imprisonment based on extraordinary and compelling reasons (the US Department of Justice provided essentially the same information as that summarised in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 59-62, 3 November 2022)); and (iv) the exercise of executive clemency by the President.Rn. 22 The relevant provisions of US federal law can be found in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 57-63, 3 November 2022) and López Elorza v. Spain (no. 30614/15, §§ 51-57, 12 December 2017).
Rn. 27 The Government referred to the Court's findings in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, 3 November 2022) and submitted that the applicant had not adduced any evidence showing that his extradition to the US would expose him to a real risk of treatment which would fall within the ambit of Article 3.
- EGMR, 04.07.2023 - 13869/22
CARVAJAL BARRIOS v. SPAIN
Rn. 57 The relevant legal framework and practice concerning executive clemency and compassionate release in United States federal law is set out in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC] 22854/20, §§ 58-62, 3 November 2022).In Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC] 22854/20, §§ 95-97 and 100, 3 November 2022) the Court indicated that a two-stage approach was called for when assessing the risk, upon extradition, of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by virtue of the imposition of an irreducible life sentence.
- EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 9839/22
BIJAN BALAHAN v. SWEDEN
With reference to the first limb of the test set out in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 95-97, 3 November 2022), the applicant argued that he had demonstrated that there was a real risk that he would receive either a sentence of life imprisonment without parole or a de facto sentence of life imprisonment without parole, consisting of a minimum term of sixty-one years in prison.Moreover, the review mechanism after sentencing (the second stage of the test established in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 22854/20, 3 November 2022), even if it provides for a system of sentencing credits for good behaviour (see paragraphs 35(b) and 62), appears practically meaningless in the circumstances of the case.
- EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 14198/20
HAFEEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
The relevant legal framework and practice is set out in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC] 22854/20, §§ 24-64, 3 November 2022).In Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC] 22854/20, §§ 95-97 and 100, 3 November 2022) the Court indicated that a two-stage approach is called for when assessing the risk, upon extradition, of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention by virtue of the imposition of an irreducible life sentence.
- EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 56532/22
HAYES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 2 other applications
The request was governed by the Extradition Act 2003 (see Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 22854/20, § 24, 3 November 2022).Rn. 67 With regard to the second ground, the applicants argued that they passed the first stage of the test in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 95-97 and 100, 3 November 2022), namely that, in the event of their conviction, there would exist a real risk that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would be imposed without due consideration of all the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.
- EGMR, 13.02.2024 - 34392/21
HORNE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Rn. 33 The relevant legal framework and practice is set out in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC] 22854/20, §§ 24-64, 3 November 2022).Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC] 22854/20, 3 November 2022).
- EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15
KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application
Rn. 113 In order to determine whether there is a risk of ill-treatment, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of extraditing the applicant to the requesting country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his or her personal circumstances (see Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 22854/20, § 85, 3 November 2022, and the cases cited therein). - EGMR, 14.04.2026 - 19002/20
ÉBERLING v. HUNGARY and 4 other applications
The general principles were most recently recapitulated in Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 57592/08, §§ 42-45, 17 January 2017) and Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 78-82, 3 November 2022). - EGMR, 21.04.2026 - 28157/18
F.B. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21
COMPAORE c. FRANCE
- EGMR - 17639/23 (anhängig)
YASHYN v. POLAND
- EGMR - 34177/23 (anhängig)
BENSAID c. FRANCE
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".