Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAZIGDAD v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RAZIGDAD v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 30764/13

  for instance, an extradition order, a decision imposing the penalty of administrative removal for an administrative offence, or a decision declaring his presence in Russia undesirable and ordering his deportation (see, by way of comparison, A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 65, 29 October 2015), and any such decision can be challenged (see paragraphs 28-29 above).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 30764/13

  The above findings do not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application before the Court and making use of the available procedures in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011, and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 30764/13

  The above findings do not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application before the Court and making use of the available procedures in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011, and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  A.R. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 30764/13

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, given the absence of such a decision, the applicant's arguments concerning potential adverse effects on his family life arising from his possible deportation from Russia remain speculative (see, mutatis mutandis, A.R. v. Russia (dec.), no. 25923/15, 10 May 2016).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 25079/19

  M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Under Russian law a specific decision requiring a foreigner's removal from the country must be delivered before a foreigner can be removed - for instance, an extradition order, a decision imposing the penalty of administrative removal for an administrative offence, or a decision declaring his presence in Russia undesirable and ordering his deportation; any such removal order can be challenged (see A.R. v. Russia, no. 25923/15, § 57, 10 May 2016, and Razigdad v. Russia [Committee] (dec.), no. 30764/13, § 38, 20 November 2018; also contrast A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 65, 29 October 2015, in which an exclusion order had been issued because the applicant's presence in Russia had been deemed to be undesirable, and the order explicitly mentioned deportation).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 16473/19

  F.T. AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any such decision, as a rule, it cannot be said that the applicant is a "victim" of a potential violation under Article 3 of the Convention (see A.R. v. Russia (dec.), no. 25923/15, § 57, 10 May 2016; Razigdad v. Russia [Committee] (dec.), no. 30764/13, § 38, 20 November 2018; and M.L. and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 35880/11

  SHERMATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that in the circumstances of the present case, given the absence of such a decision and, in particular, the court's decision to terminate the execution of the exclusion order of 12 April 2011 (see paragraph 15 above) and further decisions concerning the first applicant's failures to comply with immigration regulations which did not result in a new exclusion order against him (see paragraphs 16-18 above), the applicants' arguments concerning potential adverse effects on the first applicant's expulsion on their family life arising from his possible deportation from Russia remain speculative (see, mutatis mutandis, A.R. v. Russia (dec.), no. 25923/15, 10 May 2016 and Razigdad v. Russia, (dec.), no. 30764/13, 20 November 2018).