Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HEADLEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 8 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.05.1999 - 45187/99

  SINNARAJAH contre la SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 39642/03

  However, expulsion by a Contracting State of an alien may give rise to an issue under Article 2 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being killed (see, mutatis mutandis, the H.L.R. v. France judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, §§ 33-34; Sinnarajah v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 45187/99, 11 May 1999, unpublished; and Razaghi v. Sweden, (dec.) no. 64599/01, 11 March 2003).
• EGMR, 25.01.2005 - 64599/01

  RAZAGHI v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 39642/03

  However, expulsion by a Contracting State of an alien may give rise to an issue under Article 2 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being killed (see, mutatis mutandis, the H.L.R. v. France judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, §§ 33-34; Sinnarajah v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 45187/99, 11 May 1999, unpublished; and Razaghi v. Sweden, (dec.) no. 64599/01, 11 March 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  [ENG]

  What is relevant in this context is whether the applicant is able to obtain protection against and seek redress for the acts perpetrated against him or her (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 40, Reports 1997-III; T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III; Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39642/03, 1 March 2005; N. v. Finland, no. 38885/02, § 163, 26 July 2005; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 137 and 147, 11 January 2007; N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 110, 17 July 2008; F.H. v. Sweden, no. 32621/06, § 102, 20 January 2009; and N. v. Sweden, no. 23505/09, §§ 55-62, 20 July 2010).
• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 71321/17

  M.D. v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  However it is the Court's settled case-law that expulsion or extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention) where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being killed or subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39642/03, 1 March 2005 (with further references), and Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, §§ 127-28, 23 October 2014).
• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND C.C. v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

  However, it is the Court's settled case-law that expulsion or extradition by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention) where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being killed or subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39642/03, 1 March 2005, with further references, and Mamazhonov v. Russia, no. 17239/13, §§ 127-28, 23 October 2014).
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 3049/06

  S.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  The Court further considers that analogous considerations apply to Article 2 of the Convention where the person in question, if expelled, would face a real and personal risk of being killed (see Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 39642/03, 1 March 2005).