Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion Positive obligations) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 5 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Kasymakhunov v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (35)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  It has found, with reference to materials from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012; and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 141, 2 October 2012).

  The Court has examined a number of cases in which the applicants were accused of criminal offences in relation to their involvement with Hizb ut-Tahrir (see Muminov, cited above, §§ 94-98; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 100, 29 July 2010; Yakubov, cited above, §§ 83-94; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 126 and 127, 3 July 2012; and Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, § 136 and 137, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  The Court will examine the merits of this part of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 in the light of the applicable general principles reiterated in, among others, Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, §§ 92-100, 18 September 2012, with further references).

  That period does not appear to be unreasonably long (see, for example, Umirov v. Russia, no. 17455/11, §§ 137-142, 18 September 2012, and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, §§ 164-168, 5 February 2013, where the periods of detention following the application of an interim measure by the Court, which lasted eight months and more than five months respectively, were found to be compatible with Article 5 § 1 (f)).

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  For a summary of the recent reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and by NGOs, see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 99-107, 2 October 2012.

  It has found, with reference to materials from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012; and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 141, 2 October 2012).

• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Relying on Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's case-law (he referred to Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008; Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, 29 July 2010; Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, 4 November 2010; and Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, 8 November 2011), he argued that members of Hizb ut-Tahrir were at an increased risk of ill-treatment.

  It has found, with reference to materials from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012; and Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 141, 2 October 2012).

• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Relying on Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's case-law (he referred to Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008; Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, 29 July 2010; Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, 4 November 2010; and Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, 8 November 2011), he argued that members of Hizb ut-Tahrir were at an increased risk of ill-treatment.

  The Court has examined a number of cases in which the applicants were accused of criminal offences in relation to their involvement with Hizb ut-Tahrir (see Muminov, cited above, §§ 94-98; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 100, 29 July 2010; Yakubov, cited above, §§ 83-94; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 126 and 127, 3 July 2012; and Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, § 136 and 137, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Moreover, the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and, in this connection, the distribution of the burden of proof, are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts, the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake (see, with further references, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, § 107, 23 September 2010; and El Masri, cited above, § 151).

  The Court notes at the outset that it must consider the present case in its context, having regard in particular to the recurrent disappearances of individuals subject to extradition from Russia to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, and their subsequent resurfacing in police custody in their home country (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov, cited above; and Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above; see also paragraphs 94 and 95 above).

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right to individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161); it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right to individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  Those measures should provide effective protection, in particular, of vulnerable persons and include reasonable steps to prevent ill-treatment of which the authorities have or ought to have knowledge (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 73, ECHR 2001 V, and, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports 1998-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 116, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.10.2010 - 16474/03

  NAYDYON v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 48205/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 39358/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 22426/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 12572/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 15303/09

  Auslieferungshaft, Auslieferung, Russische Föderation, Usbekistan, erniedrigende …
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  For a summary of the relevant general provisions of the Refugees Act of Russia (Law no. 4258-I of 19 February 1993), see Kasymakhunov v. Russia (no. 29604/12, §§ 83-86, 14 November 2013).

  Consequently, the fact that an appeal against such a decision is pending does not, in itself, constitute an obstacle to the Court's examination of the complaint under Article 3 on the merits if the expulsion or extradition request remains in force (see Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, § 125, 14 November 2013; Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, § 94, 10 July 2014; and Khalikov, cited above, § 37).

• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  In the recent cases against the Russian Federation examined under Article 3 concerning the extradition of applicants to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, the Court identified the critical elements to be subjected to a searching scrutiny (see, among many other authorities, Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010; Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above; Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, October 2012; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008; and Zokhidov, cited above).
• EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 4493/11

  ATAMANCHUK v. RUSSIA

  If the Court found that the statements made by the applicant were covered by Article 17, then Article 10 would have to be declared inapplicable and the complaint incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention, without there being any need to examine whether the interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was lawful, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate to that aim (see, for example, Garaudy v. France (dec.), no. 65831/01, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Norwood v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23131/03, ECHR 2004-XI; Hizb Ut-Tahrir and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 31098/08, 12 June 2012, §§ 74-75 and 78; Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 113-114, 14 November 2013; M'Bala M'Bala v. France (dec.), no. 25239/13, § 42, ECHR 2015 (extracts); Belkacem v. Belgium (dec.), no. 34367/14, § 37, 27 June 2017; and Roj TV A/S v. Denmark (dec.), no. 24683/14, §§ 48-49, 17 April 2018).

• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  Rn. 131 The above considerations are sufficient to conclude that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, the domestic authorities failed to carry out an adequate examination of the applicant's claims and that his forcible return to Kazakhstan on 16 October 2018 exposed him to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Labsi v. Slovakia, cited above, §§ 121-32; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 166-76, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 122-28, 14 November 2013; and Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, §§ 44-56, 21 May 2015.
• EGMR, 05.09.2024 - 39503/17

  MUKHTARLI v. AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA

  Rn. 177 The Court further notes that the present case differs from a group of cases considered by the Court in which it found that the "abducted" applicants who had been forcibly transferred to third countries on plane, could not have undergone passport and customs checks in an airport and boarded a flight without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the relevant authorities (see among many others Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 113-15, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 125 October 2012; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 201-02, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, §§ 109-110, 14 November 2013; Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 43611/02, § 107, 15 October 2015, and Khamidkariyev v. Russia, no. 42332/14, § 123, 26 January 2017).
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 23293/21

  AZIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Rn. 8 The Court further reiterates that where the authorities of a State party are informed of an individual's exposure to a real and imminent risk of torture or ill-treatment through his forcible transfer to another State, they have an obligation under the Convention to conduct an effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, § 144, 14 November 2013, and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 190, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

  RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of other relevant provisions on extradition proceedings, see Kasymakhunov v. Russia (no. 29604/12, §§ 74-80, 14 November 2013).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the determination of these issues will depend upon, notably, the existence at the material time of a well-founded risk that the applicant might be subjected to ill-treatment in Uzbekistan (see Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, § 120, 14 November 2013).
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA

  He pointed out that the Court had found a violation of Article 3 in many cases in which individuals suspected of links to extremist religious groups had been extradited or expelled to Uzbekistan (citing, as recent examples, Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013; Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, 7 November 2013, and Abdulkhakov, cited above).
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 70440/10

  [ENG]

  Even considering the period from the applicant's arrest on 23 September 2010, the overall period was no more than five months and ten days, that is to say a short period of time compared with other cases in respect of which the Court did not find a violation of Article 5 § 1: for instance, the period of detention in both Kasymakhunov v. Russia (no. 29604/12, §§ 167 and 174, 14 November 2013) and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, §§ 160 and 166, 3 July 2012) was eighteen months.
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2015 - 21762/14

  TUKHTAMURODOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 74759/13

  FOZIL NAZAROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  A.R. v. RUSSIA