Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.R. v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  In fact, several such applications concerned the applicants' removal to Tajikistan (see Iskandarov, cited above, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Latipov v. Russia, no. 77658/11, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  In view of the above conclusion, the applicant had no "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52, and Nzapali v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 6107/07, § 36, 17 November 2015).
• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  Second, as regards the applicant's argument concerning an "extradition in disguise", indeed, in previous cases the Court dealt with situations where extradition requests were made by another State and rejected by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office but the applicants were still removed from Russia by way of another legal procedure (see, for instance, Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 15-17 and 102-03, 11 December 2008) or even in defiance of the legal procedures under Russian law and the indication made by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013, and Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, 23 October 2014).

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  In fact, several such applications concerned the applicants' removal to Tajikistan (see Iskandarov, cited above, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Latipov v. Russia, no. 77658/11, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  Under Russian law a specific decision requiring a foreigner's removal from the country must be taken before a foreigner can be removed, for instance, an extradition order, a decision imposing the penalty of administrative removal for an administrative offence or a decision declaring his presence in Russia undesirable and ordering his deportation (see, by way of comparison, A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 65, 29 October 2015), and any such removal order can, as the Government note, be challenged.
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  Second, as regards the applicant's argument concerning an "extradition in disguise", indeed, in previous cases the Court dealt with situations where extradition requests were made by another State and rejected by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office but the applicants were still removed from Russia by way of another legal procedure (see, for instance, Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 15-17 and 102-03, 11 December 2008) or even in defiance of the legal procedures under Russian law and the indication made by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (see Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013, and Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, 23 October 2014).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  In fact, several such applications concerned the applicants' removal to Tajikistan (see Iskandarov, cited above, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Latipov v. Russia, no. 77658/11, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  The party has now split into two factions: one is apparently loyal to the ruling regime, while the other is led by supporters of the former leader of the party, Mr Iskandarov (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010), who have been persecuted.
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  In fact, several such applications concerned the applicants' removal to Tajikistan (see Iskandarov, cited above, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Latipov v. Russia, no. 77658/11, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 6107/07

  NZAPALI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  In view of the above conclusion, the applicant had no "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52, and Nzapali v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 6107/07, § 36, 17 November 2015).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 25079/19

  M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Under Russian law a specific decision requiring a foreigner's removal from the country must be delivered before a foreigner can be removed - for instance, an extradition order, a decision imposing the penalty of administrative removal for an administrative offence, or a decision declaring his presence in Russia undesirable and ordering his deportation; any such removal order can be challenged (see A.R. v. Russia, no. 25923/15, § 57, 10 May 2016, and Razigdad v. Russia [Committee] (dec.), no. 30764/13, § 38, 20 November 2018; also contrast A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 65, 29 October 2015, in which an exclusion order had been issued because the applicant's presence in Russia had been deemed to be undesirable, and the order explicitly mentioned deportation).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 16473/19

  F.T. AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any such decision, as a rule, it cannot be said that the applicant is a "victim" of a potential violation under Article 3 of the Convention (see A.R. v. Russia (dec.), no. 25923/15, § 57, 10 May 2016; Razigdad v. Russia [Committee] (dec.), no. 30764/13, § 38, 20 November 2018; and M.L. and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 35880/11

  SHERMATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, given the absence of such a decision and, in particular, the court's decision to terminate the execution of the exclusion order of 12 April 2011 (see paragraph 15 above) and further decisions concerning the first applicant's failures to comply with immigration regulations which did not result in a new exclusion order against him (see paragraphs 16-18 above), the applicants' arguments concerning potential adverse effects on the first applicant's expulsion on their family life arising from his possible deportation from Russia remain speculative (see, mutatis mutandis, A.R. v. Russia (dec.), no. 25923/15, 10 May 2016 and Razigdad v. Russia, (dec.), no. 30764/13, 20 November 2018).
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 30764/13

  RAZIGDAD v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, given the absence of such a decision, the applicant's arguments concerning potential adverse effects on his family life arising from his possible deportation from Russia remain speculative (see, mutatis mutandis, A.R. v. Russia (dec.), no. 25923/15, 10 May 2016).