Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GARABAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+5 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Turkmenistan) Violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 13+3 Not necessary to examine Art. 13+5 ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GARABAÏEV c. RUSSIE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+5 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée (non-épuisement des voies de recours internes) Violation de l'art. 3 (en cas d'extradition vers le Turkmenistan) Violation de l'art. 5-1-f Violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de l'art. 5-3 Violation de l'art. 13+3 Non-lieu à ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.09.2005 - 38411/02
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02
• EGMR, 26.09.2013 - 38411/02

Wird zitiert von ... (35)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 4171/04

  GRIDIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  The Court reiterates, firstly, that an applicant cannot be required to exhaust domestic remedies to obtain compensation for pecuniary loss since this would prolong the procedure before the Court in a manner incompatible with the effective protection of human rights (see Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece (Article 50), judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A no. 330-B, § 40, and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; and H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 758, § 37).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  Treatment will be considered to be "inhuman" within the meaning of Article 3 because, 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, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; and H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 758, § 37).
• EGMR, 10.02.1983 - 7299/75

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  Furthermore, in considering whether a punishment or treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 (see Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58, p. 13, § 22).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 38411/02

  When assessing conditions of detention, account has to be taken of their cumulative effects as well as the applicant's speciï�c allegations (see Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 46, ECHR 2001-II).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 11364/03

  Rechtmäßigkeit der Untersuchungshaft (rechtsfehlerhafter Haftbefehl; Recht auf …

  Ein Haftbefehl ist ex facie als unwirksam anzusehen, wenn der Mangel des Haftbefehls in einem "groben offensichtlichen" Fehler im besonderen Sinn der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs besteht (vgl. Rechtssachen Liu, a. a. O. Randnr. 81; Garabayev ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 38411/02, Randnr. 89, 7.
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  [ENG]

  The current state of development of international law and international relations does not make it impossible for the respondent State to take tangible remedial measures with a view to protecting the applicant against the existing risks to his life and health in a foreign jurisdiction (see, by way of example, Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi, cited above, § 171, and the Committee of Ministers Resolution CM/ResDH(2012)68 of 8 March 2012; Othman (Abu Qatada), cited above, §§ 23-24 and 194-205; see also the measures taken by Russia to secure the applicant's return from Turkmenistan in Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 34-35, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  [ENG]

  A detention order must be considered as ex facie invalid if the flaw in the order amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" in the exceptional sense indicated by the Court's case-law (compare Liu, cited above, § 81; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Marturana, cited above, § 79).

  The Court reiterates that defects in a detention order do not necessarily render the underlying detention "unlawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1. The Court has to examine whether the flaw in the order against the applicant amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" so as to render the underlying period of his detention unlawful (see Liu, cited above, § 81; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 79, 4 March 2008; and Mooren, cited above, § 84).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 57180/09

  BERNOBIC v. CROATIA

  A detention order must be considered as ex facie invalid if the flaw in the order amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" in the exceptional sense indicated by the Court's case-law (compare Liu, cited above, § 81; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); and Marturana, cited above, § 79).

  The Court reiterates that defects in a detention order do not necessarily render the underlying detention "unlawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1. The Court has to examine whether the flaw in the order against the applicant amounted to a "gross and obvious irregularity" so as to render the underlying period of his detention unlawful (see Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 81, 6 December 2007; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 89, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 79, 4 March 2008; and Mooren, cited above, § 84).

• EGMR, 23.10.2014 - 17239/13

  MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  Firstly, it has to be considered whether an applicant has presented the national authorities with substantial grounds for believing that he faced a real risk of ill-treatment in the destination country (see e.g. Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 78, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 12018/16

  U.A. v. RUSSIA

  Similar conclusions were drawn in Human Rights Watch World Report 2016 and Amnesty International's Submissions to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in the group of cases Garabayev v. Russian Federation (No.38411/02).

  The Court notes that nothing in the parties' submissions, nor available relevant material from independent international sources such as recent Human Rights Watch World Report 2016 and Amnesty International's Submissions to the Council of Europe Committee Of Ministers: Garabayev v. Russian Federation (No.38411/02) Group of Cases, nor previously adopted judgments and decisions (see recently Kholmurodov v. Russia, no. 58923/14, 1 March 2016, and Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, 19 October 2015), indicate that there has been any improvement in either the criminal justice system of Uzbekistan in general or in the specific treatment of those prosecuted for religiously and politically motivated crimes.

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 18.10.2012 - C-396/11

  Radu - Polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen - …

  {FN:51} - Urteil vom 7. Juni 2007 (Beschwerde Nr. 38411/02).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 33468/03

  Verletzung der Unschuldsvermutung eines Verstorbenen durch gerichtliche …

  55.  As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court reiterates its constant position that an applicant cannot be required to furnish any proof of non-pecuniary damage he or she has sustained (see, among many others, Antipenkov v. Russia, no. 33470/03, § 82, 15 October 2009; Pshenichnyy v. Russia, no. 30422/03, § 35, 14 February 2008; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 113, ECHR 2007"VII (extracts); and Gridin v. Russia, no. 4171/04, § 20, 1 June 2006).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  [ENG]

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the Contracting State which deports or, as in the present case, extradites an individual, by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of that individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 89-91, Series A no. 161, and Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 73, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 2440/07

  SOLDATENKO v. UKRAINE

  Consequently, it is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Convention for such measures to be executed before the national authorities have examined whether they are compatible with the Convention, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, § 105, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.03.2017 - 34458/03

  POROWSKI v. POLAND
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 28/17

  DE SOUSA c. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 12343/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.10.2024 - 26838/22

  QUINTERO MENDEZ v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 3342/11

  RICHMOND YAW c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 18232/11

  VAKHITOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications
• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42255/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 22842/04

  BAH v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 40834/11

  KALINICHENKO c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 44068/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 45175/08

  SARA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16903/03

  DENISOVA AND MOISEYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 42443/02

  EMINBEYLI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 66066/09

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 15578/03

  YURIY LOBANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 26876/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 25978/07

  GARKAVYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 25978/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  KLEYN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 33945/05

  LEDENTSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA