Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  S.H. v. MALTA

  Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  S.H. v. MALTA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.09.2022 - 24384/19

  Rückholung aus Syrien: EU-Staaten trifft Verantwortung für ihre IS-Anhänger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see H.F. and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24384/19 and 44234/20, § 291, 14 September 2022).
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 29094/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  The same applies when considering the question of effectiveness of remedies for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in asylum cases (see A.M. v. the Netherlands, no. 29094/09, § 66, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 41872/10

  M.A. c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  The Court has on many occasions acknowledged the importance of the principle of non-refoulement (see, for example, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 286, and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 133, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and the related general principles under Article 3 were summarised by the Court in J.K. and Others v. Sweden ([GC], no. 59166/12, § 77-105, 23 August 2016) and F.G. v. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611/11, § 110-127, 23 March 2016).

• EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Verstoß Maltas gegen Art. 3 EMRK

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  However, the Court notes that, during the processing of his first asylum claim the applicant had been in detention (between September 2019 until December 2020) and the Court has repeatedly expressed its concerns in the Maltese context about concrete access to legal aid for persons in detention (see, inter alia, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 66, 23 July 2013; Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 65, 26 November 2015; and Abdi Mahamud v. Malta, no. 56796/13, § 46, 3 May 2016, in the immigration detention context, and Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta, nos.
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19

  FEILAZOO v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  While the situation might generally have improved since then (see, for example, Feilazoo v. Malta, no. 6865/19, § 58, 11 March 2021), the Court cannot but note that the procedures in the present case were ongoing during the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular the applicant's interview took place in May 2020.
• EGMR - 49975/15 (anhängig)

  RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  28492/15 and 49975/15, § 93, 29 April 2022).
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 29447/17

  D c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  The Court has also had regard to the availability of interpreters, whether the interviews were conducted by trained staff, and whether asylum-seekers had access to legal aid or legal assistance, as well as whether asylum seekers were given reasons for the decision or stereotype rejections (see, by implication, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, §§ 300-10; Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, cited above, § 204; and D v. Bulgaria, no. 29447/17, §§ 125, 132-33, 20 July 2021).
• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  However, the Court notes that, during the processing of his first asylum claim the applicant had been in detention (between September 2019 until December 2020) and the Court has repeatedly expressed its concerns in the Maltese context about concrete access to legal aid for persons in detention (see, inter alia, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 66, 23 July 2013; Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 65, 26 November 2015; and Abdi Mahamud v. Malta, no. 56796/13, § 46, 3 May 2016, in the immigration detention context, and Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta, nos.
• EGMR, 22.07.2021 - 39126/18

  E.H. c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  While the Court reiterates that there exists a legitimate interest in maintaining a system of accelerated procedures in respect of abusive or clearly ill-founded applications (see R.D. v. France, no. 34648/14, § 56, 16 June 2016, and E.H. v. France, no. 39126/18, § 201, 22 July 2021), contrary to that argued by the Government (see paragraph 73 above), the Court finds it hard to believe that anything but a superficial assessment of all the documentation presented could have been undertaken by the Tribunal within such a time-frame.
• EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20

  M.A.M. c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  Thus, the Court finds that there would be a violation of Article 3 if the applicant were to be removed to Bangladesh without a fresh assessment of his claim that, as a journalist who reported on the 2018 election irregularities, he would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned (see for a similar approach T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, § 90, 22 March 2022, and M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, § 80, 26 April 2022).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  Tadschikistan: Mögliche Verletzung des Art. 3 EMRK durch Rückführung ohne erneute …
• EGMR, 10.03.2022 - 41326/17

  SHENTURK v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 71645/13

  YANEZ PINON v. MALTA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 16.06.2016 - 34648/14

  R.D. c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.10.2014 - 31283/11

  [FRE]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.11.2024 - 56390/21

  M.I. c. SUISSE

  Even if some details may appear somewhat implausible, this does not necessarily detract from the overall general credibility of their claim (see J.K. and Others v. Sweden, cited above, § 93; see also S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, § 85, 20 December 2022).
• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  The same applies when considering the question of the effectiveness of remedies for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in asylum cases (see S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, §§ 52-54, 20 December 2022).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 80206/17

  AWAD v. TURKEY

  Even if an applicant's account of some details may appear somewhat implausible, the Court has considered that this does not necessarily detract from the overall general credibility of their claim (ibid., § 93; see also S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, § 85, 20 December 2022).

• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA

  The relevant domestic law is set out in S.H. v. Malta (no. 37241/21, §§ 30-34, 20 December 2022).
• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  Rn. 35 The Court notes that, in substance, the Government's submissions do not go further than those submitted in the recent cases of A.D. v. Malta, cited above, Fenech v. Malta (no. 19090/20, § 35, 1 March 2022) and Feilazoo v. Malta (no. 6865/19, § 48, 11 March 2021) in relation to the speediness of the constitutional redress proceedings for the purposes of Article 3 and S.H. v. Malta (no. 37241/21, § 48, 20 December 2022) in relation to the possibility of applying interim measures.
• EGMR, 13.01.2026 - 44592/17

  R. N. v. TURKEY

  The same applies when considering the question of the effectiveness of remedies for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in asylum cases (see S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, §§ 52-54, 20 December 2022, and A.M. v. the Netherlands, no. 29094/09, § 66, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR - 23441/25 (anhängig)

  A.M. v. BULGARIA

  Did the examination of the applicant's applications for international protection comply with the requirements flowing from the Court's case-law (see, in general, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 119-27, 23 March 2016, and J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 85-105, 23 August 2016)? In particular, did the Bulgarian authorities and courts comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess adequately and rigorously, before removing the applicant to Uzbekistan, the risk that he might be subjected to treatment contrary to that provision in that country (compare, mutatis mutandis, M.D. and M.A. v. Belgium, no. 58689/12, §§ 56, 57, 64-65, 19 January 2016; M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine, no. 17189/11, §§ 121 and 127, 11 June 2020; T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, §§ 70, 80-82, 85 and 89, 22 March 2022; M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, §§ 74 and 78, 26 April 2022; S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, §§ 79, 84-87 and 94-96, 20 December 2022; A.M.A. v. the Netherlands, no. 23048/19, §§ 70, 72, 75-78, 24 October 2023; J.A. and A.A. v. Türkiye, no. 80206/17, §§ 61, 65 and 74, 6 February 2024; and A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta, no. 2559/23, §§ 65 and 68-69, 4 February 2025)?.
• EGMR, 23.10.2025 - 5137/19

  N.R. v. TURKEY

  The same applies when considering the question of the effectiveness of remedies for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in asylum cases (see S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, §§ 52-54, 20 December 2022).
• EGMR, 16.11.2023 - 18787/17

  W.A. AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Moreover, and differently from what the first applicant stated in his application form, it appears that during the procedure for the validation of his refusal-of-entry order by the Justice of the Peace the first applicant was assisted by both a legal representative and an interpreter (see, mutatis mutandis, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 301, and, mutatis mutandis, S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, § 80, 20 December 2022).
• EGMR - 30737/24 (anhängig)

  M.S. v. MALTA

  Did the applicant have an effective domestic remedy, for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention, providing for an independent and rigorous assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Bangladesh (see F.G. v. Sweden ([GC], no. 43611/11, § 113, 23 March 2016; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 293, ECHR 2011; and S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, § 101-02, 20 December 2022)? In particular, can the IPAT and the IAB be considered independent (see, mutatis mutandis, J.B. and Others v. Malta, no. 1766/23, § 155, October 2024)?.
• EGMR, 17.12.2024 - 36184/21

  SULTANA v. MALTA