Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Egamberdiyev v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  In so far as the applicant claimed that the real purpose of the expulsion proceedings was to keep him in custody pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings, the Court reiterates that detention may be unlawful if its stated purpose differs from the real one (see Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 142, 31 May 2011; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42, ECHR 2002-I, and Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, § 60).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that, in view of the absolute nature of Article 3, it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for the expulsion (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 91, 22 September 2009).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  For relevant reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and NGOs until 2011, see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 99-105, 2 October 2012 and Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, §§ 107-113, 5 February 2013.

• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, for a similar approach, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 145, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  However, it does not need to determine whether the same is true in the instant case because even where the purpose of detention is legitimate, its length should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Azimov, cited above, § 166, and Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, § 162, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  It has found, with reference to material from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see, most recently, Kasymakhunov, Ermakov, Abulkhakov, Umirov, all cited above; see also Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008; and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  The Court will examine the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 in the light of the applicable general principles set out in, among others, Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, §§ 92-100, 18 September 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  He pointed out that the Court had found a violation of Article 3 in many cases in which individuals suspected of links to extremist religious groups had been extradited or expelled to Uzbekistan (citing, as recent examples, Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013; Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, 7 November 2013, and Abdulkhakov, cited above).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  He pointed out that the Court had found a violation of Article 3 in many cases in which individuals suspected of links to extremist religious groups had been extradited or expelled to Uzbekistan (citing, as recent examples, Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013; Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, 7 November 2013, and Abdulkhakov, cited above).
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  For relevant reports on Uzbekistan by the UN institutions and NGOs until 2011, see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 99-105, 2 October 2012 and Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, §§ 107-113, 5 February 2013.
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  Consequently, in reviewing such complaints the Court has focused primarily on these proceedings as constituting the basis for the complaint brought under Article 3. It has found that while ruling on the question of the possibility of removal, the scope of review by the domestic authorities, including the courts, should include relevant arguments of ill-treatment raised by the applicants, in view of the absolute nature of Article 3 (see Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 44, 26 June 2014, and Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, § 37, 6 July 2015).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  For the most recent relevant reports on Uzbekistan by the international non-governmental human rights organisations, see Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, §§ 31-34, 26 June 2014.

  The Court has been previously confronted with many cases concerning forced return from Russia to Uzbekistan of the persons accused by the Uzbek authorities of criminal, religious and political activities (see most recently, Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, 26 June 2014; Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, 28 May 2014; Nizamov and Others v. Russia, nos. 22636/13, 24034/13, 24334/13 and 24528/13, 7 May 2014, with further references).

• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA

  For the most recent relevant reports on Uzbekistan by the international human rights non-governmental organisations, see Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, §§ 31-34, 26 June 2014.

  The Court has been previously confronted with many cases concerning forced return from Russia to Uzbekistan of the persons accused by the Uzbek authorities of criminal, religious and political activities (see most recently, Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, 26 June 2014; Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, 28 May 2014; Nizamov and Others v. Russia, nos. 22636/13, 24034/13, 24334/13 and 24528/13, 7 May 2014, with further references).

• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  Hence, the Court is doubtful of their practical value in safeguarding the applicant against the alleged risks (see Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 49, 26 June 2014).
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15
  It observes, however, that it has found in a number of cases against Russia concerning detention of foreign nationals pending their administrative removal that such removal amounted to a form of "deportation" in terms of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, and that consequently that provision was applicable (see Azimov, cited above, § 160; Kim, cited above, § 48; Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 58, 26 June 2014; Rakhimov, cited above, § 124; and Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, § 69, 26 February 2015).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  Un certain nombre de rapports adoptés avant 2015 et relatifs à la situation en Ouzbékistan sont résumés dans l'arrêt Egamberdiyev c. Russie (no 34742/13, §§ 30-31, 26 juin 2014, avec les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 17833/16

  A.S. c. RUSSIE

  40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, §§ 140-42, 15 October 2015; Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, §§ 148-50, 10 July 2014; Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, §§ 199-204, 28 May 2014; Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 64, 26 June 2014; and Azimov v. Russia, cited above, § 153).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA

  For the relevant reports on Uzbekistan by UN bodies and international non-governmental human rights organisations up to 2014, see Egamberdiyev v. Russia (no. 34742/13, §§ 31-34, 26 June 2014).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA

  For the most recent relevant reports on Uzbekistan by international human rights NGOs, see Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, §§ 31-34, 26 June 2014.
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 23019/15

  ALIMURADOV v. RUSSIA

  40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, §§ 140-42, 15 October 2015; Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, §§ 148-50, 10 July 2014; Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, §§ 199-204, 28 May 2014; Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 64, 26 June 2014; and Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 153, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 78386/14

  SAAKYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 8279/16

  MARDONSHOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 55080/12

  CHANTURIDZE v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2016 - 43348/13

  CHKHIKVISHVILI v. RUSSIA