Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAKOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f MRK
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bakoyev v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (29)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  In recent judgments concerning the same subject and covering the period after 2007 until recently, after having examined the latest available information, the Court has found that there was no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 109, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 93, 8 July 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 71, 4 November 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012).

  However, the applicants in those cases had been mostly charged with politically and/or religiously motivated criminal offences (see Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 122; Muminov, cited above, § 94; and Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 84, 8 July 2010).

• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  During that time the extradition proceedings, although temporarily suspended pursuant to the request made by the Court, were nevertheless in progress for the purpose of Article 5 § 1 (f) (see, for similar reasoning, Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 73 and 74, ECHR 2007-II; Al Hanchi, cited above, § 51; and Al Husin, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  The Court reiterates at the outset that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  This is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 59, 15 January 2009, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 71, 11 October 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  In recent judgments concerning the same subject and covering the period after 2007 until recently, after having examined the latest available information, the Court has found that there was no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 109, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 93, 8 July 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 71, 4 November 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 48205/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  In accordance with the Court's well-established case-law, this latter period of the applicant's detention should be distinguished from the earlier period (see Chahal, cited above, § 114; Al Hanchi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 48205/09, §§ 49-51, 15 November 2011; and Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 3727/08, §§ 67-69, 7 February 2012).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  In recent judgments concerning the same subject and covering the period after 2007 until recently, after having examined the latest available information, the Court has found that there was no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 109, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 93, 8 July 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 71, 4 November 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 22426/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  The Court has previously found that the fact that expulsion or extradition proceedings are provisionally suspended as a result of the application of an interim measure does not in itself render the detention of the person concerned unlawful, provided that the authorities still envisage expulsion at a later stage, and on condition that the detention is not unreasonably prolonged (see Keshmiri v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 22426/10, § 34, 17 January 2012, and S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 39602/05

  FEDORENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  Although the period under examination, in itself, does not appear unreasonably long and might be justified by the need for the authorities to ensure the proper conduct of various measures in the context of an extradition check in the applicant's respect, the Court agrees with the Russian Constitutional Court that, however short a period of detention may be, it should be clearly defined in a detention order, this being an essential guarantee against arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis, Fedorenko v. Russia, no. 39602/05, § 50, 20 September 2011).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 38124/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 3990/06

  KAMYSHEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 17.05.2005 - 50232/99

  Z.M. AND K.P. v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 12572/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 15303/09

  Auslieferungshaft, Auslieferung, Russische Föderation, Usbekistan, erniedrigende …
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 44719/06

  JOESOEBOV v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 60915/09

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 49867/08

  [ENG]

  The Court stresses that the above finding is without prejudice to any examination that it might carry out regarding the application of the provisions of Law no. 6458 in the future, and does not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application with the Court and from making use of the available procedures, including under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in respect of any new circumstances that may arise, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013; Budrevich v. the Czech Republic, no. 65303/10, § 69, 17 October 2013; and Asalya, cited above, § 92).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  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, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir considéré dans une série d'affaires russes concernant la détention à des fins d'extradition fondée sur l'article 466 § 2 du CPP que cette disposition ne satisfaisait pas aux exigences de clarté et de prévisibilité pour constituer une « loi'au sens de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention (voir Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, §§ 175-181, 2 octobre 2012, Niyazov c. Russie, no 27843/11, § 118-125, 16 octobre 2012, Bakoyev c. Russie, no 30225/11, §§ 142-150, 5 février 2013, Zokhidov, précité, §§ 155-159, Yefimova c. Russie, no 39786/09, §§ 262-267, 19 février 2013, Oshlakov c. Russie, no 56662/09, §§ 107-111, 3 avril 2014, et Akram Karimov, précité, §§ 149-151).

• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09

  [ENG]

  The Court stresses that the above finding does not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application before the Court and from making use of the available procedures, including under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in respect of any new circumstances that may arise, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov, cited above; Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013; and Budrevich, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

  It will therefore assess whether the applicants face a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of their extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

  GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court will therefore assess whether the applicant faces a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  KHAMRAKULOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court will therefore assess whether the applicant faces a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court will assess whether the applicant faces a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 52805/10

  ABIDOV AGAINST RUSSIA AND 19 OTHER CASES

  30225/11.
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 16473/19

  F.T. AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The above findings do not prevent the applicants from lodging new applications before the Court and making use of the available procedures, including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 29957/14

  SHEYKH ALI v. RUSSIA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

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

  TUKHTAMURODOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 35880/11

  SHERMATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 30764/13

  RAZIGDAD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 17724/14

  TADZHIBAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2014 - 56478/13

  M.D. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 40755/16

  B.T. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 53544/13

  BAROW AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  A.A. v. RUSSIA