Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIR ISFAHANI c. PAYS-BAS

  Art. 3, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Radiation du rôle (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIR ISFAHANI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Art. 3, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Struck out of the list (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.10.2006 - 76642/01

  ASSOCIATION SOS ATTENTATS ET DE BOERY c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 31252/03

  Ainsi que la Cour en a jugé précédemment, elle jouit d'une ample marge d'appréciation pour identifier les motifs susceptibles de mener à une radiation d'une requête sur la base de l'article 37 § 1 c), même s'il convient de préciser à cet égard que pareils motifs doivent résider dans les circonstances particulières de la cause (Association SOS Attentats et de Boery c. France [GC], (déc.), no 76642/01, § 41, CEDH 2006-XIV).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04

  STOJANOVIC v. SERBIA

  The same case-law has been adopted by the Court under Article 3 of the Convention in cases concerning expulsions or extraditions whose execution was no longer possible (see Bilasi-Ashri v. Austria (dec.), no. 3314/02, ECHR 2002-X; Abraham Lunguli v. Sweden (dec.), no. 33692/02, 1 July 2003; Laleh Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008; Bari v. Sweden (dec.), no. 56726/00, 5 March 2002; Hesam Safawi Bayat v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7233/02, 8 July 2003; R.N. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28242/02, 2 September 2003; Q v. Finland (dec.), no. 42640/04, 22 May 2007; Azzedine Chelghoum v. France (dec.), no. 54654/00, 10 October 2000; and Tony Chidobe v. Italy (dec.), no. 30978/04, 9 September 2004).
• EGMR, 18.04.2024 - 37478/16

  A AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  More specifically, when deportation or extradition had been delayed only as a result of an indication by the Court of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent irreparable damage being done to the asserted Convention right, the facts constituting the alleged violation of Article 13 had already materialised by the time the risk of the applicant's deportation had been prevented by the Court or had ceased to exist (see, for example, Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien], cited above, § 56; I.M. v. France, cited above, §§ 100-101, and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 120, ECHR 2013 (extracts), contrast to Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008).
• EGMR, 18.10.2016 - 26456/14

  M.G. AND E.T. v. SWITZERLAND

  However, the circumstances of the present case differ significantly - and thus must be distinguished - from the above-mentioned cases (see, in that sense, Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.) no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008).

• EGMR, 01.10.2013 - 13681/08

  [ENG]

  In particular in view of the fact that at the present time there is no risk of the applicant being expelled to Iran and the alleged risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention materialising, and in the absence of any specific indications as to why the complaint under Article 13 would still require investigation (see Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008), the circumstances of the present case lead the Court to consider that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 21258/03

  M.E. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In any event, the Court sees no reason to reach a different conclusion on this matter than the one it arrived at in the case of Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec., no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008) which also concerned a rejected asylum seeker who had been issued a residence permit pursuant to the terms of the general amnesty and who also complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the scope of the judicial review which had been available to her.
• EGMR, 22.04.2008 - 20816/05

  E.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court observes that it has dealt with exactly the same issue in the case of Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec., no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008), which also concerned a rejected asylum seeker who had been issued a residence permit pursuant to the terms of the general amnesty and who also complained under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the scope of the judicial review which had been available to her.
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 20651/11

  H.N. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  In particular in view of the fact that at the present time there is no risk of the applicant being expelled to Afghanistan and the alleged risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention materialising, and in the absence of any specific indications as to why the complaint under Article 13 would still require investigation (see Mir Isfahani v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 31252/03, 31 January 2008), the circumstances of the present case lead the Court to consider that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.