Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  R.K. v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Democratic Republic of the Congo);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  R.K. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 49-57 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  The assessment must focus on the foreseeable consequences of the applicant's removal to the country of destination, in the light of the general situation there and of his or her personal circumstances (see, for example, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, §§ 107 and 108, Series A no. 215; and F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, § 115).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  The Court further finds that it is more appropriate to deal with the complaint under Article 2 in the context of its examination of the applicant's related complaint under Article 3 and will proceed on this basis (see N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 95, 17 July 2008).

• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  The assessment must focus on the foreseeable consequences of the applicant's removal to the country of destination, in the light of the general situation there and of his or her personal circumstances (see, for example, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, §§ 107 and 108, Series A no. 215; and F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, § 115).
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  In the judgments in the cases of Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013) and Kim v. Russia (no. 44260/13, 17 July 2014) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  In the judgments in the cases of Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013) and Kim v. Russia (no. 44260/13, 17 July 2014) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  The Court notes that temporary asylum should not serve as an alternative to the standard ways of legalising one's stay in Russia... As follows from paragraph 124 of the [Court's] judgment in Shakurov v. Russia, 55822/10, of 5 June 2012, '... [the] mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of an unsettled situation in the receiving country does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3...' The applicant did not demonstrate that he was at a higher risk of persecution than the rest of the DRC population.
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 31084/18

  K.G. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  For a summary of the relevant general provisions of the Refugees Act of Russia concerning refugee-status and temporary asylum proceedings (Law no. 4258-I of 19 February 1993), see K.G. v. Russia (Dec.), 31084/18, 2 October 2018, §§ 18-22.
• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 29031/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 30261/17

  Finally, the Court notes that there is no evidence before it that the applicant was involved in any DRC political opposition activities or group abroad and for this reason would have to fear ill-treatment upon his return to the DRC (see, for similar reasoning Mawaka v. the Netherlands, no. 29031/04, § 49, 1 June 2010).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 71321/17

  M.D. v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  The Court has already held that foreign nationals who have been detained pending their expulsion are not able to have the reasons and lawfulness of their detention reviewed by the domestic courts (see, as a recent example, R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND C.C. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  Lastly, in so far as access by K.J. to periodic judicial review of his continued detention is concerned, the Court has already found that foreign nationals who have been detained in Russia pending their expulsion are not able to have the reasons and lawfulness of their detention reviewed by the domestic courts (see, among other authorities, L.M. and Others v Russia, cited above, §§ 141-42, and R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 38042/18

  A.K. v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  Accordingly, in the light of these considerations and given the recurrent findings of violations of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention in respect of foreigners or stateless persons detained virtually indefinitely in Russia with a view to their administrative expulsion (see R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-5, 8 October 2019; L.M. and Others v. Russia, cited above, §§ 145-52; Mumanzhinova and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 724/18 and eight others, §§ 17-26, 8 October 2019; Ismailov v. Russia [Committee], no. 45852/17, §§ 22-3, 24 September 2019; and M.S.A. and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 29957/14 and eight others, §§ 62-6, 12 December 2017), the Court finds that the length of the detention of A.K. and A.Y. exceeded what was reasonably required for the purpose pursued and that their detention became a punitive rather than a preventive measure.
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 29958/20

  A.Y. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  Having examined all the material before it (see Appendix I, "Detention"), the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 5 § 1 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see, among many others, R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, §§ 62-65, 8 October 2019).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 12120/20

  A.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court finds that it is more appropriate to deal with the complaint under Article 2 in the context of its examination of the applicants' related complaint under Article 3 and will proceed on this basis (see N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 95, 17 July 2008, and R.K. v. Russia, no. 30261/17, § 36, 8 October 2019).