Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN [Extracts]

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 5 No violation of Art. 6 Violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS c. ESPAGNE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 3 Non-violation de l'art. 5 Non-violation de l'art. 6 Violation de l'art. 34 Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédures nationale et de la Convention (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.02.2005 - 46827/99

  MAMATKULOV AND ASKAROV v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  Following the judgment handed down by the Grand Chamber on 4 February 2005 in the case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I), the applicant requested permission to submit additional pleadings to the Court.
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  In its above-cited Mamatkulov and Askarov Grand Chamber judgment the Court departed from its earlier case-law (see, amongst other authorities, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, series A no. 201, pp. 29-30, and Conka and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 51564/99, 13 March 2001) concerning the nature of the interim measures adopted under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  That conclusion was qualified in the Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia judgment (no. 36378/02, §§ 473 and 478, ECHR 2005-III), where the Court held: "The fact that the Court was able to complete its examination of the merits of [the] complaints against Georgia does not mean that the hindrance to the exercise of that right did not amount to a breach of Article 34 of the Convention".
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 50278/99

  AOULMI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  Lastly, in the Aoulmi v. France judgment (no. 50278/99, § 100, ECHR 2006-...) the Court examined the Government's submission "that the applicant's expulsion had taken place before the delivery of the Mamatkulov and Askarov judgment and... that the Court was required to reach its findings with reference to the applicable legal context at the time of the impugned measure".

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  In every case it has attempted to determine, on the basis of the diplomatic assurances provided by the requesting country, whether the extradition of the persons concerned did indeed expose them to such a risk, and if so, whether the life sentence could be reduced so that they had a hope of being released (see, among other authorities, Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII; Einhorn v. France (dec.), no. 71555/01, ECHR 2001-XI; Salem v. Portugal (dec.), no. 26844/04, 9 May 2006; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, ECHR 2006-X; and Schuchter v. Italy, (dec.), no. 68476/10, 11 October 2011).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Er ist der Auffassung, dass die Gefahr einer flagranten Rechtsverletzung im Bestimmungsstaat, ebenso wie die Gefahr einer nach Artikel 2 und/oder Artikel 3 verbotenen Behandlung, in erster Linie im Hinblick auf die Tatsachen zu beurteilen ist, die dem Vertragsstaat zum Zeitpunkt der Auslieferung des Betroffenen bekannt waren oder bekannt gewesen sein sollten (…siehe Mamatkulov und Askarov , a.a.O., Randnr. 90; und Olaechea Cahuas ./. Spanien , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24668/03, Randnr. 61, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 43212/05

  Metin Kaplan

  Schließlich hat der Gerichtshof auch die Möglichkeit bedacht, den Interamerikanischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte anzurufen ( Peñafiel Salgado ./. Spanien (Entsch.), Nr. 65964/01, 16. April 2002, 01aechea Cahuas ./. Spanien , Nr. 24668/03, Rdnr. 43, 10.

• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Finally, the Court recalls its findings in the Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain judgment (no. 24668/03, § 1, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)), where it held, in particular, that "failure to comply with an interim measure indicated by the Court because of the existence of a risk [is] in itself alone a serious hindrance, at that particular time, of the effective exercise of the right of individual application.".
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  [ENG]

  It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  [ENG]

  It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X (extracts); and Paladi, cited above, §§ 90 and 91).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-..., which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France; see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 33809/08

  LABSI v. SLOVAKIA

  A failure by a Contracting State to comply with interim measures is to be regarded as preventing the Court from effectively examining the applicant's complaint and as hindering the effective exercise of his or her right and, accordingly, as a violation of Article 34 (for recapitulation of the relevant case-law see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 102-129, ECHR 2005-I; Aoulmi v. France, no. 50278/99, § 110, ECHR 2006-I (extracts); Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, §§ 71-82, ECHR 2006-X (extracts); Mostafa and Others v. Turkey, no. 16348/05, §§ 38-44, 15 January 2008; Ben Khemais v. Italy, no. 246/07, §§ 80-88, 24 February 2009; Paladi v. Moldova [GC], no. 39806/05, §§ 84-92, 10 March 2009; or Toumi v. Italy, no. 25716/09, §§ 72-77, 5 April 2011).
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04

  GRORI v. ALBANIA

  It is for the Court to verify compliance with the interim measure, while a State which considers that it is in possession of materials capable of convincing the Court to annul the interim measure should inform the Court accordingly (see, mutatis mutandis, Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 70, ECHR 2006-X; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 131, ECHR 1999-IV; and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 246/07

  BEN KHEMAIS c. ITALIE

  Il n'y aurait violation de l'article 34 de la Convention, interprété à la lumière de l'article 31 de la Convention de Vienne, que lorsque le droit de recours a été concrètement atteint et non seulement mis en danger de manière abstraite ; et l'analyse de la jurisprudence de la Cour en la matière confirmerait cette conclusion (voir, notamment, Olaechea Cahuas c. Espagne, no 24668/03, 10 août 2006, Aoulmi c. France, no 50278/99, 17 janvier 2006, Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, no 36378/02, CEDH 2005-III, et Mamatkoulov et Askarov, précité).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 39806/05

  PALADI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06

  Abschiebungsverbot, Libyen, Niederlande
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]