Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 43844/98   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2000,5721
EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 43844/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,5721)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07.03.2000 - 43844/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,5721)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 07. März 2000 - 43844/98 (https://dejure.org/2000,5721)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2000,5721) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (5)

Papierfundstellen

  • NVwZ 2001, 301
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (53)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

  • EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

    Jens Söring

    Auszug aus EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 43844/98
    Nor has it been shown that this decision was taken without appropriate regard to the existence of adequate safeguards in Germany to avoid the risk of any inhuman or degrading treatment (see e.g. Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, §§ 97-98, Nsona and Nsona v. the Netherlands judgment of 28 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, § 102, and D. v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, § 52).
  • EGMR, 23.02.2012 - 27765/09

    Italiens Flüchtlingspolitik: Rechte auch auf hoher See

    The Court reiterates the principle according to which indirect removal of an alien leaves the responsibility of the Contracting State intact, and that State is required, in accordance with the well-established case-law, to ensure that the person in question would not face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of repatriation (see, mutatis mutandis, T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III, and M.S.S., cited above, § 342).

    The extension of the prohibition to indirect or "chain" refoulement has been acknowledged in European human rights law (see T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III; Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, §§ 72-76, 26 April 2005; and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, no. 30696/09, § 286, 21 January 2011), in universal human rights law (see UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, 26 May 2004, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, para. 12, and Committee Against Torture General Comment No. 1: Implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the Context of Article 22, 21 November 1997, A/53/44, Annex IX, para. 2, and Korban v. Sweden, Communication No. 88/1997, 16 November 1998, UN doc. CAT/C/21/D/88/1997) and in international refugee law (UN doc. E/1618, E/AC.32/5: the Ad Hoc committee reported that the draft article referred "not only to the country of origin but also to other countries where the life or freedom of the refugee would be threatened", and UN doc. A/CONF.2/SR.16 (summary report of the 16th meeting of the conference of plenipotentiaries, 11 July 1951): refoulement includes subsequent forcible return from the receiving country to another country where there would be a danger to life and liberty of the refugee, according to a Swedish proposal, which was later withdrawn by the Swedish representative, "stressing, however, that, as the President had also observed, the text of the article should be interpreted as covering at least some of the situations envisaged in that part of the amendment"), and UNHCR, Note on Non-Refoulement (EC/SCP/2), 1977, para.

  • EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

    Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

    More generally, while the Convention did not exclude the transfer of competences to international organisations, the State had to continue to secure Convention rights (see T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III, and M. & Co., cited above).
  • EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 8319/07

    SUFI AND ELMI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    However, the Court has held that reliance on an internal flight alternative does not affect the responsibility of the expelling Contracting State to ensure that the applicant is not, as a result of its decision to expel, exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 141 and T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht