Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to the United States) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of America);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07, 32650/07
• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

Wird zitiert von ... (22)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  In a letter of 25 June 2012 the Court informed the parties that the examination of the request to lift the interim measure had been postponed indefinitely in view of the request for referral to the Grand Chamber of the cases Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 66069/09) and Harkins and Edwards v. United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07).
• BVerfG, 04.05.2018 - 2 BvR 632/18

  Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen Ausweisung nach Tunesien

  Rn. 57 (4) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat die Bedeutung der fortgeltenden Strafzwecke (vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 17. Januar 2012 - 9146/07 et al. -, Harkins und Edwards/Großbritannien, Rn. 137 f.; vom 10. April 2012 - 24027/07 et al.
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20

  SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012 (see paragraph 35 below).

  In January 2012 the Chamber, in Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), found that the applicant's extradition would not breach his rights under Article 3; such a sentence would not be "grossly disproportionate" and Mr Harkins had not demonstrated that there was a real risk of treatment reaching the Article 3 threshold as a result of his sentence were he to be extradited.

  In his view, Trabelsi was a logical and clear continuation of the principles established by the Court in Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and not, as the High Court judge suggested, an "unexplained departure" from Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012).

• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  HARKINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  L'arrêt rendu par la Cour en l'affaire Harkins et Edwards c. Royaume-Uni, nos 9146/07 et 32650/07, 17 janvier 2012.

  En particulier, il plaide que les arrêts Harkins et Edwards c. Royaume-Uni (nos 9146/07 et 32650/07, 17 janvier 2012), Vinter et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC] (nos 66069/09 et 2 autres, CEDH 2013 (extraits)), et Trabelsi c. Belgique (no 140/10, CEDH 2014 (extraits)), et plus récemment, Murray c. Pays-Bas ([GC], no 10511/10, CEDH 2016), pris ensemble, ont fixé des critères nouveaux et plus stricts à respecter pour qu'une extradition exposant à une peine de perpétuité réelle soit conforme à l'article 3.

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS v. ROMANIA and 2 other applications

  Referring to Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), it found that, on the facts of the case, a sentence of life imprisonment was fully justified, and that there was no requirement for the extraditing State to request any guarantees that such a sentence would be commuted.

  The applicants invited the Court to follow its approach in Trabelsi (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), which they submitted was consistent with its earlier case-law, including Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), and which had been confirmed in a series of subsequent judgments of the Court.

• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 56532/22

  HAYES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and 2 other applications

  9146/07 and 32650/07, § 133, 17 January 2012).

  Rn. 108 "Gross disproportionality" is a strict test that will only be met on "rare and unique occasions" (see Babar Ahmad and Others, cited above, § 237; Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, § 133, 17 January 2012 and Aswat v. the United Kingdom, no. 17299/12, § 58, 16 April 2013).

• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 37610/18

  Polen darf Häftling nicht nach China ausliefern

  The Court has repeatedly stated that the Convention does not purport to be a means of requiring the Contracting States to impose Convention standards on other States (see Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, § 129, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 20.05.2014 - 73593/10

  [ENG]

  9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012, Vinter (cited above) and Törköly (cited above).
• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  G.S. c. BULGARIE

  They were first set out in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, §§ 81-91, Series A no. 161), and were more recently restated in detail in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 66-70, ECHR 2005-I), Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, §§ 167-79, 10 April 2012), Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 119-31, 17 January 2012), Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, §§ 116-20, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), as well as in a judgment against Bulgaria (see M.G. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, §§ 74-82, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 22205/13

  CALOVSKIS v. LATVIA

  In that light, and considering the scale of allegations against the applicant pending in the United States, the applicant's argument based on a comparison of the penalties applicable in the United States and Latvia is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate a "gross disproportionality", which is a strict test that will only be met on "rare and unique occasions" (see ibid., § 74; Babar Ahmad and Others, cited above, §§ 235-37; see also Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, § 133, 17 January 2012).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 43759/10

  WILLCOX AND HURFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  LÓPEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.07.2025 - 58671/12

  KOLI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 17299/12

  ASWAT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 58555/10

  RRAPO v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 49134/20

  LANG v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 9839/22

  BIJAN BALAHAN v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 14198/20

  HAFEEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 11.09.2012 - 37286/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 43999/16

  Kosovo: Staatlicher Schutz vor Blutrache nach Auslieferung gegeben.
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 20696/12

  KULEVSKIY v. RUSSIA