Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13+3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 34 Remainder inadmissible Just satisfaction reserved ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 42502/06

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 2947/06

  ISMOILOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  In support of his allegation of the risk of ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the applicant also submitted a copy of the third-party submissions by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the AIRE Centre in the cases of Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, judgment of 24 April 2008) and in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I); the 2005 report by the Memorial Human Rights Centre in cooperation with the International League for Human Rights in relation to the Second Periodic Report of Uzbekistan to the UN Human Rights Committee; the 2005 HRW Briefing Paper "Torture Reform Assessment: Uzbekistan's Implementation of the Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on Torture" and other documents from that organisation; and various news items available on Internet sites such as www.centrasia.ru.

  The applicant's representative also relied on the third-party interveners" submissions before the Court in the cases of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, ECHR 2005-I) and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008).

  Besides, it refers to its findings in the Nasrulloyev case concerning the divergent approaches taken by the Russian authorities on the issue of provisions applicable to detainees awaiting extradition, in particular on the issue whether Article 109 of the CCrP, which lays down the procedure and specific time-limits for reviewing detention, was applicable (see also Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 129, 19 June 2008, and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 2947/06, 12 December 2006).

• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  For other relevant documents, see the Court's judgment in the case of Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2007-.

  Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-..., which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France; see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-...).

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a breach imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not only to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress, in so far as possible, the effects thereof (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Nasrulloyev, cited above, § 95).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  In other exceptional cases, the nature of the violation found may be such as to leave no real choice as to the measures required to remedy it and the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see, for example, Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  With reference to the Court's judgment in the case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005-III), it was argued that the respondent Government's failure to comply with an indication under Rule 39 should not necessarily prevent the Court from examining on the merits a complaint under Article 3. Otherwise, it would be less burdensome for a respondent State to remove an applicant from its territory in cases in which Rule 39 was applied and to be held in violation of Article 34 of the Convention than to comply with Rule 39 and to be found to have breached Article 3 and/or Article 6.
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-..., which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France; see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-..., which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France; see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-...).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  Exceptionally, with a view to helping the respondent State to fulfil its obligations under Article 46, the Court will seek to indicate the type of measure that might be taken in order to put an end to a systemic situation it has found to exist (see Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 43258/98

  G.H.H. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

• VG Freiburg, 08.09.2020 - A 8 K 10988/17
  In diesen Fällen widerspricht es dem Wesen von Art. 3 EMRK und seinem absoluten Schutz, wenn über die genannten Kriterien hinaus eine individuelle Betroffenheit der Beschwerdeführer verlangt würde (EGMR…, Urteil vom 17.07.2008 - 25904/07 [NA v. The United Kingdom] -, Rn. 116; Urteil vom 11.12.2008 - 42502/06 [Muminov v. Russia] -, Rn. 95).
• EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 46998/08

  MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA

  Lastly, the Court reiterates that the concept of a "criminal charge" in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is an autonomous one, which means, inter alia, that proceedings concerning certain categories of subject matter may fall outside the scope of this Article (see for comparison domestic decisions regarding "entry, stay and deportation of aliens": Maaouia v. France [GC], no. 39652/98, § 40, ECHR 2000-X, and Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 126, 11 December 2008, also concerning a case under the Russian CAO).
• EGMR, 06.02.2018 - 46637/09

  BUTORIN v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that the factual setting and the legal issues raised by the applicant, insofar as they relate to the applicable domestic law and practice pertaining in 2009, are substantively similar to those previously examined in the cases Muminov v. Russia (no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008) and Nasrulloyev v. Russia (no. 656/06, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08

  KURBANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has established in a number of cases against Russia its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the rights of persons detained pending extradition in so far as the lawfulness of their detention is concerned and the availability of judicial review of such detention (see, for example, Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, ECHR 2007-VII (extracts); Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 77 and 88-89, 11 October 2007; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 131 and 139-140, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 115 and 122, 11 December 2008; Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009).