Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition Positive obligations) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation Extradition) (Procedural aspect) No violation of ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Ermakov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  Any laxity on this question would unacceptably weaken the protection of the core rights in the Convention and would not be compatible with its values and spirit; it would also be inconsistent with the fundamental importance of the right to individual petition and, more generally, undermine the authority and effectiveness of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European public order (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, §§ 100 and 125, and, mutatis mutandis, Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 75, Series A no. 310).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A).

 
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 48205/09

  AL HANCHI v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  The Court notes, first, that in accordance with its case-law, this period should be distinguished from the earlier period of the applicant's detention (see Chahal, cited above, § 114, and Al Hanchi v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 48205/09, §§ 49-51, 15 November 2011).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 62400/10

  SOLIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  For instance, in two Russian cases the Court has found that intervals between periodic reviews of detention ranging from two to four months were compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, §§ 57-62, 5 June 2012, and Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 108-14, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  KHODZHAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  For instance, in two Russian cases the Court has found that intervals between periodic reviews of detention ranging from two to four months were compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, §§ 57-62, 5 June 2012, and Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 108-14, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  However, the implementation of an interim measure does not in itself have any bearing on whether the deprivation of liberty to which that individual may be subjected complies with Article 5 § 1. In other words, the domestic authorities must still act in strict compliance with domestic law (see Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, §§ 74-75, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  Long intervals in the context of automatic periodic review may give rise to a violation of Article 5 § 4 (see, among others, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 77, Series A no. 244).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  With reference to Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden (20 March 1991, §§ 95-96 and 104, Series A no. 201), the Government argued that failure to comply with a request for interim measures did not per se entail a violation of Article 34 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.06.2009 - 37214/05

  BARKANYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 30.09.2004 - 40896/98

  NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a toutefois relevé à plusieurs reprises dans des affaires qui concernaient des cas d'extradition que les autorités russes interprètent l'article 1 § 1-1 de la loi sur les réfugiés d'une manière stricte, excluant son application dans le cas d'allégations d'un risque d'être soumis à de mauvais traitements pour des raisons autres que celles qu'il énumère (voir, à titre d'exemples, Turgunov c. Russie, no 15590/14, §§ 20-24, 22 octobre 2015, Khalikov c. Russie, no 66373/13, §§ 21-24, 26 février 2015, Mamazhonov c. Russie, no 17239/13, §§ 42-47, 23 octobre 2014, Mamadaliyev c. Russie, no 5614/13, §§ 29-33, 24 juillet 2014, Kadirzhanov et Mamashev c. Russie, nos 42351/13 et 47823/13, §§ 53, 60 et 63, 17 juillet 2014, Ermakov c. Russie, no 43165/10, §§ 30-42, 7 novembre 2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev, précité, §§ 27-29, Makhmudzhan Ergashev c. Russie, no 49747/11, §§ 20-23 et 28-29, 16 octobre 2012, et Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, §§ 33-39, 2 octobre 2012).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  O.O. v. RUSSIA

  In this regard, the present case is distinctly different from a number of previously decided cases where a failure to comply with an interim measure took place in the context of: an applicant's disappearance (see Mamazhonov, cited above, §§ 173-209, 214-19), an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 177-85, 197-204, 214-19, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), or an action otherwise outside of the normal functioning of the law-enforcement authorities (see Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, §§ 212-217, 7 November 2013 or Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, §§ 69-72, 21 May 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes in this connection that it has previously concluded that a forcible transfer of an individual to a State that was not a party to the Convention by aircraft from Moscow or the surrounding region could not happen without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the Russian authorities (see Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, §§ 113-15, 23 September 2010; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, 14743/11, §§ 125-27, 2 October 2012; and Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 176, 7 November 2013).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA

  The mere fact of ratification of international human rights treaties by Uzbekistan does not in itself provide sufficient safeguards against ill-treatment because of the absence of any control mechanisms in relation to the country's compliance with its commitments (here the applicant referred to the Court's findings in: Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, § 204, 7 November 2013, and Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 98, 12 May 2010).
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 2592/17

  R.A. v. RUSSIA

  The Court had previously ruled on a number of cases where a failure to comply with an interim measure took place in the context of an applicant's disappearance (see Mamazhonov, cited above, §§ 173-209, 214-19), an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 177-85, 197-204, 214-19, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), or the actions otherwise outside of the normal functioning of the law-enforcement authorities (see Ermakov v. Russia, no. 43165/10, §§ 282-87, 7 November 2013).