Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (China) (englisch)

• doev.de

  A. B. und Y.W./Malta - Pflicht zur Prüfung von Abschiebungsverboten

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.03.2022 - 41326/17

  SHENTURK v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  41326/17 and 3 others, § 116, 10 April 2022) and the assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 must necessarily be a rigorous one (ibid., § 127, and.
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  The Court also reiterates that Article 3 does not, as such, preclude Contracting States from placing reliance on the existence of an internal flight alternative in their assessment of an individual's claim that a return to his country of origin would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by that provision (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 141, 11 January 2007; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 98, Reports 1996-V; and Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  60. The Court has on many occasions acknowledged the importance of the principle of nonrefoulement (see, for example, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 286, and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 133, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and the related general principles under Article 3 were summarised by the Court in J.K. and Others v. Sweden ([GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 77-105, 23 August 2016), F.G. v. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 110-27, 23 March 2016) and, more recently, in Khasanov and Rakhmanov (cited above, §§ 95-116).

• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  The Court also reiterates that Article 3 does not, as such, preclude Contracting States from placing reliance on the existence of an internal flight alternative in their assessment of an individual's claim that a return to his country of origin would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by that provision (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 141, 11 January 2007; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 98, Reports 1996-V; and Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, §§ 67-68, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 68377/17

  NAGPAL AND MADAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  In any event, and bearing in mind the shortcomings referred to by the applicants (see paragraph 51 above), the Court considers it relevant to reiterate that while past persecution or mistreatment would weigh heavily in favour of a positive assessment of risk of future persecution, its absence is not a decisive factor (see T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, § 81, 22 March 2022; see also A.S.N. and Others v. the Netherlands, nos. 68377/17 and 530/18, § 119, 25 February 2020, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR - 49975/15 (anhängig)

  RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  28492/15 and 49975/15, § 93, 29 April 2022).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 23048/19

  A.M.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  As regards the distribution of the burden of proof, the Court clarified in J.K. and Others v. Sweden (cited above, §§ 91-98) that it was the shared duty of an asylumseeker and the immigration authorities to ascertain and evaluate all relevant facts in asylum proceedings (see also A.M.A. v. the Netherlands, no. 23048/19, § 68, 24 October 2023).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 16026/12

  AMERKHANOV v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  It therefore deems it unnecessary to rule separately on the merits of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Amerkhanov v. Turkey, no. 16026/12, § 59, 5 June 2018, and A.M.A. v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 83).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  Tadschikistan: Mögliche Verletzung des Art. 3 EMRK durch Rückführung ohne erneute …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  In any event, and bearing in mind the shortcomings referred to by the applicants (see paragraph 51 above), the Court considers it relevant to reiterate that while past persecution or mistreatment would weigh heavily in favour of a positive assessment of risk of future persecution, its absence is not a decisive factor (see T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, § 81, 22 March 2022; see also A.S.N. and Others v. the Netherlands, nos. 68377/17 and 530/18, § 119, 25 February 2020, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20

  M.A.M. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  72. Thus, the Court finds that there would be a violation of Article 3 if the applicants were to be removed to China without an ex nunc rigorous assessment of the risk they would face on their return to XUAR as Uighur Muslims rejected asylum seekers (see, for a similar approach, F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, § 158, S.H. v. Malta, cited above, § 102, T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, cited above, § 90, and M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, § 80, 26 April 2022).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 62903/15

  EGMR zu Recht auf Leben im Falle häuslicher Gewalt
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 29094/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 80206/17

  AWAD v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 5115/18

  M.A. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  S.H. v. MALTA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• OVG Bremen, 05.05.2026 - 2 LC 44/25

  Pflicht der Ausländerbehörde zur Prüfung von zielstaatsbezogenen …

  In seinem Urteil vom 04.02.2025 - 2559/23, A.B. und Y.W. ./. Malta, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2025:0204JUD000255923, verweist der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Rn. 66 f. zunächst auf die Notwendigkeit, neu zu prüfen, ob sich die Lage im Hinblick auf Art. 3 EMRK zulasten der Betroffenen verschlechtert hat, wenn seit der letzten Prüfung dieser Frage in einem Verfahren über internationalen Schutz eine beträchtliche Zeit verstrichen ist.
• EGMR, 09.12.2025 - 10859/24

  H.M. v. SWEDEN

  Rn. 39 Having regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that, given the circumstances of the present case and the Court's fundamentally subsidiary role, the applicant was obliged to avail himself of the remedy indicated by the Government - namely lodging an application for re-examination - in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention (contrast Sufi and Elmi, cited above, § 206, and A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta, no. 2559/23, § 74, 4 February 2025).
• EGMR - 23441/25 (anhängig)

  A.M. v. BULGARIA

  Did the examination of the applicant's applications for international protection comply with the requirements flowing from the Court's case-law (see, in general, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 119-27, 23 March 2016, and J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 85-105, 23 August 2016)? In particular, did the Bulgarian authorities and courts comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess adequately and rigorously, before removing the applicant to Uzbekistan, the risk that he might be subjected to treatment contrary to that provision in that country (compare, mutatis mutandis, M.D. and M.A. v. Belgium, no. 58689/12, §§ 56, 57, 64-65, 19 January 2016; M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine, no. 17189/11, §§ 121 and 127, 11 June 2020; T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, §§ 70, 80-82, 85 and 89, 22 March 2022; M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, §§ 74 and 78, 26 April 2022; S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, §§ 79, 84-87 and 94-96, 20 December 2022; A.M.A. v. the Netherlands, no. 23048/19, §§ 70, 72, 75-78, 24 October 2023; J.A. and A.A. v. Türkiye, no. 80206/17, §§ 61, 65 and 74, 6 February 2024; and A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta, no. 2559/23, §§ 65 and 68-69, 4 February 2025)?.
• VG Potsdam, 27.10.2023 - 2 L 799/23

  Kenia: Dublin Italien: Suspendierung; Keine systemischen Mängel

  die aufschiebende Wirkung der zum Aktenzeichen VG 2 K 2559/23.A erhobenen Klage des Antragstellers gegen den Bescheid des Bundesamtes für Migration und Flüchtlinge vom 25. September 2023 (Az.: 10069255-243) anzuordnen,.