Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M.A.M. c. SUISSE

  Violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditionnel) (Pakistan);Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant (Article 41 - Préjudice moral;Satisfaction équitable) (französisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M.A.M. c. SUISSE

  Art. 1, Art. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 1 MRK
  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2019 - 12148/18

  Abschiebung eines Terroristen: In Algerien geht es nicht unmenschlich zu

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20

  Elle considère que, jusqu'à ce moment et à moins qu'elle ne prenne une nouvelle décision à cet égard, la mesure provisoire indiquée au Gouvernement en vertu de l'article 39 du règlement (paragraphe 25 ci-dessus) doit continuer de s'appliquer (voir ci-dessous le dispositif de l'arrêt) (voir, mutatis mutandis, A.M. c. France, no 12148/18, § 136, 29 avril 2019).
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20

  Dans cette situation, elle estime que le constat que l'expulsion, si elle était menée à exécution, constituerait une violation de ces dispositions, représente une satisfaction équitable suffisante (O.D. c. Bulgarie, no 34016/18, § 72, 10 octobre 2019, Auad c. Bulgarie, no 46390/10, § 144, 11 octobre 2011, et les affaires qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 65692/12

  TATAR v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20

  La Cour constate que les griefs du requérant tirés des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention sont indissociables et elle les examinera donc ensemble (voir, notamment, mutatis mutandis, F.G. c. Suède [GC], no 43611/11, § 110, CEDH 2016, N.A. c. Suisse, no 50364/14, § 40, 30 mai 2017, Tatar c. Suisse, no 65692/12, § 45, 14 avril 2015, et T.A. c. Suède, no 48866/10, § 37, 19 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 50364/14

  N.A. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20

  La Cour constate que les griefs du requérant tirés des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention sont indissociables et elle les examinera donc ensemble (voir, notamment, mutatis mutandis, F.G. c. Suède [GC], no 43611/11, § 110, CEDH 2016, N.A. c. Suisse, no 50364/14, § 40, 30 mai 2017, Tatar c. Suisse, no 65692/12, § 45, 14 avril 2015, et T.A. c. Suède, no 48866/10, § 37, 19 décembre 2013).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 48866/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20

  La Cour constate que les griefs du requérant tirés des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention sont indissociables et elle les examinera donc ensemble (voir, notamment, mutatis mutandis, F.G. c. Suède [GC], no 43611/11, § 110, CEDH 2016, N.A. c. Suisse, no 50364/14, § 40, 30 mai 2017, Tatar c. Suisse, no 65692/12, § 45, 14 avril 2015, et T.A. c. Suède, no 48866/10, § 37, 19 décembre 2013).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BGH, 16.01.2025 - 4 ARs 11/24

  Vorlage nach § 42 Abs. 1 IRG (Rechtsfrage von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung; …

  Ob auch die Gewährleistungen des Art. 9 EMRK im Kontext eines strafrechtlichen Auslieferungsverfahrens Anwendung finden, hat der Gerichtshof bislang dahinstehen lassen (vgl. EGMR, M.A.M. c. Suisse, Urteil vom 26. April 2022, Nr. 29836/20, § 81, 84) und betont, jenseits der absolut geltenden Verbote nach Art. 3 EMRK könne aus pragmatischer Sicht jedenfalls nicht verlangt werden, eine Person nur in ein Land zurückzuführen, in dem die Lebensbedingungen den Gewährleistungen der EMRK in vollem Umfang entsprechen (…vgl. EGMR, Z and T v. the United Kingdom, Entscheidung vom 28. Februar 2006, Nr. 27034/05, BeckRS 2006, 143954 Rn. 26).
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 56390/21

  M.I. c. SUISSE

  Rn. 18 For a summary of the relevant domestic law, see M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, §§ 27-28, 26 April 2022.

  Rn. 68 Having regard to its case-law and to equitable considerations, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court rejects the claim in respect of pecuniary damage and finds that its conclusion that the applicant's expulsion to Iran, if carried out, would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention represents sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, for example, M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, §§ 88-91, 26 April 2022).

• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

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

  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, 30.08.2022 - 1348/21

  Frankreich verurteilt: Abschiebungen nach Russland unzulässig

  Ce faisant, la majorité de la Chambre semble s'être écartée de l'approche préconisée par la Grande Chambre s'agissant du besoin d'apprécier ex nunc des éléments nouveaux survenus au cours de la procédure nationale concernant le risque allégué par un requérant (voir F.G. c. Suède [GC], no 43611/11, §§ 156-158, 23 avril 2016 ou, plus récemment, M.A.M. c. Suisse, no 29836/20, §§ 78-80, 26 avril 2022).
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  S.H. v. MALTA

  Thus, the Court finds that there would be a violation of Article 3 if the applicant were to be removed to Bangladesh without a fresh assessment of his claim that, as a journalist who reported on the 2018 election irregularities, he would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned (see for a similar approach T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, § 90, 22 March 2022, and M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, § 80, 26 April 2022).
• EGMR, 21.03.2024 - 14820/19

  B.S. v. TURKEY

  Rn. 14 In respect of the present case, given the nature of applicant's complaints, the Court finds that the issues under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention are indissociable; it will therefore examine them together (see, among other authorities, M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, § 62, 26 April 2022).
• 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)?.
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 30036/22

  R.G. c. SUISSE

  Rn. 22 The case material available to the Court further clearly demonstrates that the Swiss authorities have duly discharged their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention by rigorously examining the applicant's claims (see paragraphs 8, 10-12 above) and, following a thorough analysis, by dismissing specific allegations with reliance on sufficient relevant material and reasonable arguments (compare M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, §§ 74-80, 26 April 2022 and B and C v. Switzerland, nos. 889/19 and 43987/16, §§ 61-63, 17 November 2020).