Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LÓPEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of America) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LÓPEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 20672/15

  FINDIKOGLU v. GERMANY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  Indeed, the applicant has to demonstrate that the maximum penalty would be imposed without due consideration of all the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors or that a review of such a sentence would be unavailable (Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.), no. 20672/15, § 37; compare Čalovskis, cited above, § 146).

  In sum, the applicant has not demonstrated that the maximum penalty would be imposed by a US court without due consideration of all the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors (see Findikoglu v. Germany (dec), no. 20672/15, 7 June 2016, and Čalovskis, cited above, § 146).

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  Secondly, the applicant contested the argument that the US Government had provided sufficient guarantees, stating that they were identical to the ones that had already been analysed by the Court in the case of Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and found to be in violation of Article 3 (inter alia).

  b.- What are the concrete mechanisms and under what US legal basis is the applicant entitled to review his possible final life sentence? In this sense, are the appeal, pardon and other review mechanisms referred to in the note verbale of 3 December 2014 the ones described in the case of Trabelsi v. Belgium (application no. 140/10, 4 September 2014, § 27)?".

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  Under well-established Court case-law, protection against the treatment prohibited under Article 3 is absolute, and as a result the extradition of a person by a Contracting State can raise problems under this provision and therefore engage the responsibility of the State in question under the Convention, where there are serious grounds to believe that if the person is extradited to the requesting country he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Trabelsi, cited above, § 116, and Soering v. United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161).

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Briten dürfen Hassprediger an USA ausliefern

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  The Court draws no distinction in terms of the legal basis for removal; it adopts the same approach in cases of both expulsion and extradition (see Harkins and Edwards, no. 9146/07, § 120 17 January 2012 and Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, § 179, 10 April 2012, § 168).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  The Court draws no distinction in terms of the legal basis for removal; it adopts the same approach in cases of both expulsion and extradition (see Harkins and Edwards, no. 9146/07, § 120 17 January 2012 and Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, § 179, 10 April 2012, § 168).
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 36295/02

  IORGOV v. BULGARIA (no. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  Until recently the Court had held that the mere possibility of adjustment of a life sentence was sufficient to fulfil the requirements of Article 3. It thus ruled that the possibility of early release, even where such a decision was at the discretion of the Head of State (see Kafkaris, cited above, § 103) or the hope of Presidential clemency in the form of either a pardon or a commutation of sentence (see Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, §§ 51-60, 2 September 2010) was sufficient to establish such a possibility.
• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  On 15 March 2016 the parties were informed that the examination of the case was suspended, pending the outcome of the proceedings in the case Harkins v. United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], no. 71537/14.
• EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

  MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 40014/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  Consequently, regardless of the judgment mentioned by the applicant, we consider that they comply with the requirements established in the ECtHR's judgment Hutchinson v. United Kingdom [(no. 57592/08, 3 February 2015)], as well as the judgment of 13 November 2014 [Bodein v. France, no. 40014/10, 13 November 2014)], lodged by a French citizen.
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  The Government noted that the Court had on several occasions declared that penalties heavier than 72 months did not entail a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and cited the cases of Léger v. France, (no. 19324/02, 11 April 2006), and Kafkaris v. Cyprus ([GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 49134/20

  LANG v. UKRAINE

  On the latter point, the US Department of Justice provided detailed information on the rules and policies guiding the exercise of executive clemency, notably US Department of Justice regulations setting out the procedures to be followed in respect of clemency applications (most of this information is summarised in Sanchez-Sanchez, cited above, § 58, and López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 57, 12 December 2017).

  Rn. 22 The relevant provisions of US federal law can be found in Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 22854/20, §§ 57-63, 3 November 2022) and López Elorza v. Spain (no. 30614/15, §§ 51-57, 12 December 2017).

  In this regard, it is for the applicant to demonstrate that such a penalty would be imposed (see López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 107, 12 December 2017, and Findikoglu v. Germany (dec.), no. 20672/15, § 37, 7 June 2016).

• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20

  SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has repeatedly stated that as torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment are prohibited in absolute terms, the extradition of a person by a Contracting State can raise problems under Article 3 of the Convention and therefore engage the responsibility of the sending State where there are serious grounds to believe that that person would run a real risk of being subjected to such ill-treatment in the requesting country (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 88, Series A no. 161; see also López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 102, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  Rn. 112 In determining whether it has been shown that the applicant runs a real risk, if extradited, of suffering treatment proscribed by Article 3, the Court will assess the issue in the light of all the material placed before it and, if necessary, material obtained proprio motu (see Tershiyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 10226/13, § 48, 31 July 2014, and López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 106, 12 December 2017).

• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  G.S. c. BULGARIE

  The decisions of the Bulgarian courts are of no assistance when assessing this, as they laboured under the assumption that the only penalty possibly awaiting the applicant in Iran was imprisonment (compare, mutatis mutandis, with López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 109, 12 December 2017, and with X v. Sweden, no. 36417/16, § 59, 9 January 2018).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS v. ROMANIA and 2 other applications

  That being said, it is not the Court's role to seek to address every conceivable permutation that could occur or every possible scenario that might arise in the sentencing process (see López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 118, 12 December 2017; see also Sanchez-Sanchez, cited above, § 108 in fine), all the more so in the present case, where the parties' conclusions are so strikingly different.
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORE c. FRANCE

  Rn. 91 Il est ainsi établi dans la jurisprudence de la Cour que les États ont l'obligation de ne pas extrader une personne vers un pays qui en fait la demande lorsqu'il y a des motifs sérieux et avérés de croire que l'intéressé, si on le renvoie vers le pays de destination, y courra un risque réel d'être soumis à un traitement contraire à l'article 3, et donc de s'assurer qu'un tel risque n'existe pas (Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, § 88, série A no 161, López Elorza c. Espagne, no 30614/15, § 102, 12 décembre 2017, Romeo Castaño c. Belgique, no 8351/17, § 92, 9 juillet 2019, Einhorn c. France (déc.), no 71555/01, § 25, CEDH 2001-XI, et Bivolaru et Moldovan, précité, §§ 107-109).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  That being said, it is not the Court's role to seek to address every conceivable permutation that could occur or every possible scenario that might arise in the sentencing process (see López Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, § 118, 12 December 2017; see also Sanchez-Sanchez, cited above, § 108 in fine), all the more so in the present case, where the parties' conclusions are so strikingly different.
• EGMR, 19.03.2026 - 29223/24

  ABLYAZOV c. FRANCE

  Rn. 26 La Cour rappelle ensuite que les États ont l'obligation de ne pas extrader une personne vers un pays qui en fait la demande lorsqu'il y a des motifs sérieux et avérés de croire que l'intéressé, si on le renvoie vers le pays de destination, y courra un risque réel d'être soumis à un traitement contraire à l'article 3, et donc de s'assurer qu'un tel risque n'existe pas (Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, § 88, série A no 161, López Elorza c. Espagne, no 30614/15, § 102, 12 décembre 2017, Romeo Castaño c. Belgique, no 8351/17, § 92, 9 juillet 2019, Einhorn c. France (déc.), no 71555/01, § 25, CEDH 2001-XI, et Bivolaru et Moldovan, précité, §§ 107-109).