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 ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• 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

  Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  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, 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, 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, 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).

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON 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, 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).

  US LAW AND PRACTICE 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, 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, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20

  SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  La Cour a dit à maintes reprises que, la prohibition de la torture et des peines et traitements inhumains ou dégradants étant absolue, l'extradition d'une personne par un État contractant peut soulever un problème au regard de l'article 3 de la Convention, et donc engager la responsabilité de l'État en cause, lorsqu'il y a des motifs sérieux de croire que l'intéressé sera exposé dans l'État requérant à un risque réel d'être soumis à pareils mauvais traitements (Soering c. Royaume-Uni, 7 juillet 1989, § 88, série A no 161 ; voir aussi López Elorza c. Espagne, no 30614/15, § 102, 12 décembre 2017).
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORÉ c. FRANCE

  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 - 41655/16 (anhängig)

  ANTIC v. SERBIA

  66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts); and Lopez Elorza v. Spain, no. 30614/15, 12 December 2017)? In this connection, did the domestic courts or the Government consider the sentencing practice in the United States of America for the criminal offences with which the applicant was charged? Does the applicant risk under US criminal law, in respect of the relevant charge, the imposition of a maximum penalty of life imprisonment that precludes early release and/or release on parole de jure and de facto and, if so, would that be consistent with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008)? What are the concrete legal mechanisms, if any, under which the applicant may be entitled to request a review of his possible final life sentence? Has the Serbian Government requested or received any assurances from the US regarding the possibility for the applicant to have his possible final life sentence reviewed?.