Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOBROV v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 59, 11 October 2007, with further references).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  In such circumstances the Court considers that the applicant's complaint about any future extradition order would be premature and therefore he cannot claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B).

• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 33024/19

  FIRTASH v. AUSTRIA

  The above findings do not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application before the Court and from making use of the available procedures, including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  BUDREVICH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 59, 11 October 2007, with further references, and Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 40314/16

  A.A. v. RUSSIA

  The above findings do not prevent the applicant from lodging a new application with the Court and making use of the available procedures â?? including the one under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court â?? in respect of any new circumstances, in compliance with the requirements of Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention (see Tukhtamurodov, cited above, § 41; Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011; and Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 100, 5 February 2013).