Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHAMAYEV AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 A... bs. 3, Art. 13+2, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 32, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4 MRK
  Government's preliminary objections dismissed No violation of Art. 2 as regards one applicant No violation of Art. 3 by Georgia as regards 5 extradited applicants Incompatibility ratione personae of the complaints under Art. 2 and 3 concerning the extradition of 5 ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 2, Art. 6 A... bs. 3, Art. 13+2, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 32, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 4 MRK
  Exceptions préliminaires du gouvernement russe rejetées Non-violation de l'art. 2 en ce qui concerne un requérant Non-violation de l'art. 3 par la Géorgie en ce qui concerne 5 requérants extradés Incompatibilité rationae personae des griefs tirés des art. 2 et 3 ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 16.09.2003 - 36378/02
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

Wird zitiert von ... (96)Zitiert selbst (39)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  It has already established that Article 3 cannot be interpreted as generally prohibiting the death penalty (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 40-41, §§ 103-04), since that would nullify the clear wording of Article 2 § 1. That does not, however, mean that circumstances relating to a death sentence can never give rise to an issue under Article 3. The manner in which it is imposed or executed, the personal circumstances of the condemned person and a disproportionality to the gravity of the crime committed, as well as the conditions of detention while awaiting execution, are examples of factors capable of bringing the treatment or punishment received by the condemned person within the proscription under Article 3 (see Soering, cited above, p. 41, § 104).

  As far as I am aware, the only examples of a finding of a potential violation of Article 3 in the event of extradition concern extradition to a State that is not a signatory to the Convention (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201).

• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  However, they do not establish that extradition would have imposed a personal threat on the extradited applicants (see Čonka and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 51564/99, 13 March 2001, and also, mutatis mutandis, H.L.R. v. France, cited above, p. 759, § 42).

  In the light of the evidence in its possession, the Court considers that the tactic of trickery and speed adopted by the Georgian authorities was intended to trap the applicants and, by presenting them with a fait accompli, to avoid complications (see, mutatis mutandis, Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 41 and 42, ECHR 2002-I; Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, pp.

• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  In this respect also the Convention must be interpreted as guaranteeing rights which are practical and effective as opposed to theoretical and illusory (see, inter alia, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, pp. 35-36, § 99).

  As far as I am aware, the only examples of a finding of a potential violation of Article 3 in the event of extradition concern extradition to a State that is not a signatory to the Convention (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, and Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201).

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  Unless they wish their conduct to be declared contrary to Article 34 of the Convention, a Government which has doubts as to the authenticity of an application must inform the Court of its misgivings, rather than deciding itself to resolve the matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 129, ECHR 1999-IV, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 409, 18 June 2002).

  The Court relies on the Orhan option, which consists in asserting that "the assessment of the authenticity of an application comes under the sole jurisdiction of the Court, and not that of a Government" (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002, and paragraph 513 of the present judgment).

• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 28861/03

  KHUSEIN AZIEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  On the other hand, in the correspondence regarding his application (no. 28861/03 - see paragraph 238 above), he claimed on two occasions that he had applied to the Court from Georgia to complain about his extradition; further, in his letter of 30 October 2003, he disputed the Russian Government's argument that he had never lodged this application.

  Rn. 322 In addition, on 19 August 2003 Mr Aziev, assisted by Mr Timichev, lodged a new application with the Court, directed solely against Russia (see Aziev v. Russia, no. 28861/03).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  Treatment is considered to be "inhuman" if, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical or mental suffering (see, inter alia, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  In order for a punishment or treatment associated with it to be "inhuman" or "degrading", the suffering or humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate punishment (see Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 14-15, §§ 29-30).
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  Rn. 444 The Court reiterates that, notwithstanding the terms of Article 13 read literally, the existence of an actual breach of another provision of the Convention (a "substantive" provision) is not a prerequisite for the application of the Article (see Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, § 64).
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  However, Article 13 cannot reasonably be interpreted so as to require a remedy in domestic law in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29, § 77 (a)).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  The Court points out that Article 3 enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies and makes no provision for exceptions (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82
• EKMR, 24.01.1968 - 3321/67

  GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK v. THE GOVERNMENT OF GREECE ; GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY v. THE …
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 38812/97

  POLTORATSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.03.2001 - 22493/93

  BERKTAY c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 25760/94

  IPEK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 32574/96

  ALGÜR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.07.2000 - 33951/96

  CALOC v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 15.01.2004 - 27699/95

  TEKDAG v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 31866/96

  SATIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

  Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

  Hence, the Convention reinforces the protection afforded at national level, but never limits it (see United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, 30 January 1998, § 28, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 500, ECHR 2005 III; and Micallef v. Malta, no. 17056/06, § 44, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 15.12.2016 - 16483/12

  Lampedusa-Haft war illegal

  Consequently, even if the orders had contained information as to the legal basis for the detention, which was not the case, they would not in any event have satisfied the requirement of promptness (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 416, ECHR 2005-III, and L.M. v. Slovenia, cited above, § 145, where the Court found that an interval of four days fell outside the time constraints imposed by the notion of promptness for the purposes of Article 5 § 2).

  "Where a complaint concerns allegations that the person's expulsion would expose him to a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the importance the Court attaches to that provision and given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the risk of torture or ill-treatment alleged materialised, the effectiveness of the remedy for the purposes of Article 13 requires imperatively that the complaint be subject to close scrutiny by a national authority (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 448, ECHR 2005-III), independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Jabari, cited above, § 50), and reasonable promptness (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004-IV).

• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Er erinnert daran, dass Artikel 34 dem Beschwerdeführer ein prozessuales Recht verleiht, das von den in Artikel 1 der Konvention und den Protokollen zur Konvention festgelegten materiellen Rechten zu unterscheiden ist (siehe, in Bezug auf den früheren Artikel 25 Abs. 1 der Konvention, Cruz Varas , a.a.O., S. 35 - 36; Randnr. 99; und Shamayev und andere ./. Georgien und Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 36378/02, Randnr. 470, 12.

• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 35/10

  ZARMAYEV c. BELGIQUE

  Partant, l'affaire devait être distinguée des arrêts que la Cour avait rendus dans des affaires directement liées à des faits qui s'étaient déroulés durant la deuxième guerre de Tchétchénie (Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, no 36378/02, CEDH 2005-III, et Chitaïev c. Russie, no 59334/00, 18 janvier 2007).

  Il risquerait donc, en cas d'extradition vers la Fédération de Russie, d'être victime d'un procès truqué et d'être exposé, au cours de sa détention, aux traitements infligés aux anciens combattants tchétchènes détenus dans les prisons russes qui atteignent, selon lui, le seuil de gravité requis par l'article 3. Outre la référence à la jurisprudence de la Cour notamment dans l'affaire Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie (no 36378/02, CEDH 2005-III), il fournit à l'appui de ce grief plusieurs rapports internationaux dénonçant des faits de torture infligés par les autorités russes aux détenus présentant un profil comparable au sien.

  Dans l'affaire Chamaïev c. Géorgie et Russie (no 36378/02, CEDH 2005-II), la Cour a examiné des assurances diplomatiques précédemment données par la Russie dans le cadre d'une demande d'extradition.

  [9] Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, no 36378/02, CEDH 2005-III, p. 250.

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  Polen als Handlanger der CIA

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see, among many examples, Janowiec and Others, cited above, § 202, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 253-254, ECHR 2004 III; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000 VI; and Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 493, ECHR 2005-III).
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see, among many other examples, Soering, cited above, § 88; Selmouni v. France, cited above, § 95; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Ilaşcu and Others, cited above, § 424; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 375, ECHR 2005-III; El-Masri, cited above, § 195; see also Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 26-31, ECHR 2001-XI).

  Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005-III.

• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 46454/11

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see, among many other examples, Soering, cited above, § 88; Selmouni, cited above, § 95; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Ilaşcu and Others cited above, § 424; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 375, ECHR 2005-III; El-Masri, cited above, § 195; see also Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 26-31, ECHR 2001-XI).

  Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005-III.

• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  It points out that in its admissibility decision (§ 49), it found that the applicant's argument as to the risk of ill-treatment in Eritrea was sufficiently credible for the Court to consider that it raised an issue of substance under Article 3. It follows that the complaint under Article 3 is "arguable", with the result that the applicant is entitled in principle to rely on that provision in conjunction with Article 13 (in addition to Rotaru v. Romania ([GC], no. 28341/95, § 67, ECHR 2000-V), cited in the admissibility decision, and Conka, cited above, §§ 75-76, see, for example, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, §§ 444-45, ECHR 2005-III).
• EuGH, 25.05.2023 - C-608/21

  Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …

  Der EGMR hat nämlich bereits entschieden, dass jede Person, die das Recht zur Einlegung eines Rechtsbehelfs hat, um eine umgehende Entscheidung über die Rechtmäßigkeit ihrer Inhaftierung herbeizuführen, dieses Recht nicht wirksam geltend machen kann, wenn ihr nicht innerhalb möglichst kurzer Frist und in hinreichendem Umfang die Gründe ihres Freiheitsentzugs mitgeteilt werden (EGMR, Urteil vom 12. April 2005, Shamayev u. a./Georgien und Russland, CE:ECHR:2005:0412JUD003637802, § 413).

  Rn. 66 Die in den Rn. 55 und 56 des vorliegenden Urteils angeführte Rechtsprechung des EGMR zu Art. 5 EMRK bestätigt diese Auslegung von Art. 6 Abs. 2 der Richtlinie 2012/13, da sie verlangt, dass die Gründe für die Festnahme oder Inhaftierung in hinreichendem Umfang mitgeteilt werden (EGMR, Urteil vom 12. April 2005, Shamayev u. a./Georgien und Russland, CE:ECHR:2005:0412JUD003637802, § 413) und dass sie die rechtlichen und tatsächlichen Gründe für die Freiheitsentziehung enthalten, damit die betroffene Person sie gemäß Art. 5 Abs. 4 vor einem Gericht anfechten kann (EGMR, Urteil vom 15. Dezember 2016, Khlaifia u. a./Italien, CE:ECHR:2016:1215JUD001648312, § 115).

• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 71156/01

  Mitglieder der Versammlung von Gldani der Zeugen Jehovas u.a. ./. Georgien

  Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 338, ECHR 2005-...) that these individuals were subjected to ill-treatment.
• EGMR, 23.11.2023 - 50849/21

  WA?�ĘSA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 40167/06

  Rechte vertriebener armenischer Kurden gestärkt
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 12.01.2023 - C-608/21

  Politseyski organ pri 02 RU SDVR - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Justizielle …
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 17.05.2018 - C-585/16

  Alheto - Vorabentscheidungsersuchen - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des …
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20

  SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05

  MUSTAFA TUNÇ AND FECIRE TUNÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 67521/14
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 28490/02

  BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 58802/12

  Sudan, unmenschliche Behandlung, Folter, SLM, Sudanese Liberation Movement, …
• EGMR, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  Kirgisistan: nicht mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit drohende …
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 42337/12

  SUSO MUSA v. MALTA
• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 16.02.2023 - C-756/21

  International Protection Appeals Tribunal u.a. (Attentat au Pakistan) - Vorlage …
• EGMR, 22.04.2014 - 6528/11

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 37048/04

  GIORGI NIKOLAISHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2026 - 46238/20

  MORAWIEC v. POLAND
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

  T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 72710/11

  YARASHONEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND C.C. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 74209/16

  WILLEMS ET GORJON c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 29447/17

  D c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 75953/16

  D AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04

  GRORI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 6383/17

  AL-HAWSAWI v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 42224/11

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 51432/09

  SAIDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 54131/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 246/07

  BEN KHEMAIS c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 3598/10

  KISLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 12336/03

  PERISAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.05.2025 - 56297/21

  SADOMSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 15931/15

  DI MARTINO c. ITALIE et 1 autre affaire
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 14344/13

  ALIMOV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  L.M. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 11082/06

  KHODORKOVSKIY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 65025/01

  BIRZNIEKS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 52812/07

  KAMALIYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 18232/11

  VAKHITOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 18913/11

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 39804/04

  BAISUEV AND ANZOROV v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2012 - 33809/08

  LABSI v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2007 - 39806/05

  PALADI v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 26.06.2007 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  MUSAEV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.11.2011 - 19246/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.10.2009 - 4313/04

  GORGUILADZE c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 18.03.2010 - 58939/00

  KOUZMIN c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 21571/05

  MINDADZE ET NEMSITSVERIDZE c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 30518/11

  ALIEV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 1542/13

  BEÇAJ v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06

  Abschiebungsverbot, Libyen, Niederlande
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 15916/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.02.2009 - 42716/02

  TOMA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 522/04

  ALIEV c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 29.01.2008 - 69852/01

  KIDZINIDZE c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 68622/01

  DANELIA c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 31.08.2006 - 16870/03

  VIKULOV ET AUTRES c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 26.08.2025 - 38336/21

  RISTIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2016 - 5794/13

  S.N. AND T.D. v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 50372/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 39549/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 207/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 16.11.2010 - 9934/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 33526/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 28861/03

  KHUSEIN AZIEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 30779/04

  PATSURIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 42047/06

  GHVALADZE c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 50091/99

  SOYSAL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 30323/02

  PANDJIKIDZE ET SIX AUTRES c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 33420/96

  KAYA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 53037/99

  VIRGIL IONESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 54646/2017

  Russische Föderation: Abschiebung eines Islamistischen Gefährders nach Russland; …
• EGMR, 05.09.2017 - 23619/11

  KHOLDAROV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 18414/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 75157/01

  SADAYKOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 73241/01

  DAVTIAN c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 30.03.2004 - 46640/99

  JIAN contre la ROUMANIE