Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (China);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.03.2014 - 31535/09

  GORBULYA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  The Court notes that, while the applicant's allegations were supported by a letter from the local Federal Migration Service and affidavits from inmates (see paragraphs 71 and 73 above), the Government have provided no information to counter the applicant's allegations that he was kept in nearly absolute social isolation (see, for similar reasoning, Gorbulya v. Russia, no. 31535/09, § 79, 6 March 2014).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30042/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  The Court considers that the type of solitary confinement to which the applicant was subjected, without appropriate mental or physical stimulation, was likely to have had a damaging effects on him, resulting in the deterioration of both his mental faculties and his social skills (see Csüllög v. Hungary, no. 30042/08, § 30, 7 June 2011).
• EGMR, 02.03.2010 - 61498/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  The Court reiterates its general principles as set out in the case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom (no. 61498/08, ECHR 2010):.

• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 41015/04

  KABOULOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  Similarly, Article 2 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 prohibit the extradition or deportation of an individual to another State where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she would face a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty there (see Hakizimana v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37913/05, 27 March 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Soering, cited above, § 111; S.R. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 62806/00, 23 April 2002; Ismaili v. Germany (dec.), no. 58128/00, 15 March 2001; Bader and Kanbor, cited above, § 42; and Kaboulov v. Ukraine, no. 41015/04, § 99, 19 November 2009).".
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 5140/02

  FEDOTOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 66-70, 25 October 2005; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; and Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 6110/03

  KUPTSOV AND KUPTSOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 66-70, 25 October 2005; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; and Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 16074/07

  SHCHEBET v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 66-70, 25 October 2005; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; and Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 15.03.2001 - 58128/00

  ISMAILI contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  Similarly, Article 2 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 prohibit the extradition or deportation of an individual to another State where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she would face a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty there (see Hakizimana v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37913/05, 27 March 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Soering, cited above, § 111; S.R. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 62806/00, 23 April 2002; Ismaili v. Germany (dec.), no. 58128/00, 15 March 2001; Bader and Kanbor, cited above, § 42; and Kaboulov v. Ukraine, no. 41015/04, § 99, 19 November 2009).".
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 12106/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  The Court reiterates that it has already examined the conditions of detention obtaining in police stations in various Russian regions and found them to be in breach of Article 3 (see Fedotov v. Russia, no. 5140/02, § 66-70, 25 October 2005; Shchebet v. Russia, no. 16074/07, §§ 86-96, 12 June 2008; Kuptsov and Kuptsova v. Russia, no. 6110/03, §§ 69 et seq., 3 March 2011; and Ergashev v. Russia, no. 12106/09, §§ 128-34, 20 December 2011).
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 37913/05

  HAKIZIMANA v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 44095/14

  Similarly, Article 2 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 prohibit the extradition or deportation of an individual to another State where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that he or she would face a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty there (see Hakizimana v. Sweden (dec.), no. 37913/05, 27 March 2008; and, mutatis mutandis, Soering, cited above, § 111; S.R. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 62806/00, 23 April 2002; Ismaili v. Germany (dec.), no. 58128/00, 15 March 2001; Bader and Kanbor, cited above, § 42; and Kaboulov v. Ukraine, no. 41015/04, § 99, 19 November 2009).".
• EGMR, 23.04.2002 - 62806/00

  S.R. v. SWEDEN

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BGH, 16.01.2025 - 4 ARs 11/24

  Vorlage nach § 42 Abs. 1 IRG (Rechtsfrage von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung; …

  (1) Nach der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte kann eine Pflicht des ausliefernden oder sonst ausweisenden Vertragsstaats, von der Auslieferung einer Person abzusehen, vor allem dann bestehen, wenn dieser am Auslieferungsziel eine Strafe oder Behandlung droht, die die Schwelle einer die absolut geltende Gewährleistung des Art. 3 EMRK verletzenden unmenschlichen oder erniedrigenden Behandlung überschreitet (vgl. EGMR (GK), Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia, Urteil vom 29. April 2022, Nr. 28492/15 und 49975/15, § 94; M.G. c. Bulgarie, Urteil vom 25. März 2014, Nr. 59297/12, § 74), insbesondere die Verhängung der gemäß Art. 1 des Zusatzprotokolls Nr. 6 zur EMRK sowie Art. 1 des Zusatzprotokolls Nr. 13 zur EMRK abgeschafften Todesstrafe (vgl. EGMR, A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, Urteil vom 29. Oktober 2015, Nr. 44095/14, § 64).
• EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 60367/08

  Khamtokhu und Aksenchik ./. Russland: Lebenslange Freiheitsstrafe nur für Männer …

  In 2009 the Constitutional Court imposed an indefinite moratorium on capital punishment in Russia (for the text of the decision, see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 51, 29 October 2015).

  The territories encompassed by the member States of the Council of Europe have become a zone free of capital punishment and the Court has accepted that exposing an applicant to a real risk of being sentenced to death and executed elsewhere may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 102-104, Series A no. 161; Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, §§ 115-18 and 140-43, ECHR 2010; and A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, §§ 63-66, 29 October 2015).

• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 38263/08

  Russland für Menschenrechtsverstöße nach Südkaukasuskrieg verurteilt - Russland …

  6 and 13 to the Convention (see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, §§ 63-66, 29 October 2015).

• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 33050/18

  GHAZARYAN AND BAYRAMYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Lastly, a system of regular monitoring of the prisoner's physical and mental condition should also be put in place in order to ensure that the solitary confinement measures remain appropriate in the circumstances (see, for example, A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 76, 29 October 2015, with further references to Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, § 83, 27 January 2009; Onoufriou v. Cyprus, no. 24407/04, §§ 70 and 71, 7 January 2010; and Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 139, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 47679/17

  M.I. v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  As to the applicant's complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court notes that in 2009 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation imposed an indefinite moratorium on capital punishment in Russia (for the text of the decision, see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 51, 29 October 2015), and the applicant's contentions to the contrary remain unsubstantiated.
• EGMR, 06.04.2021 - 25079/19

  M.L. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Under Russian law a specific decision requiring a foreigner's removal from the country must be delivered before a foreigner can be removed - for instance, an extradition order, a decision imposing the penalty of administrative removal for an administrative offence, or a decision declaring his presence in Russia undesirable and ordering his deportation; any such removal order can be challenged (see A.R. v. Russia, no. 25923/15, § 57, 10 May 2016, and Razigdad v. Russia [Committee] (dec.), no. 30764/13, § 38, 20 November 2018; also contrast A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 65, 29 October 2015, in which an exclusion order had been issued because the applicant's presence in Russia had been deemed to be undesirable, and the order explicitly mentioned deportation).
• EGMR, 08.02.2022 - 16473/19

  F.T. AND RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  25079/19 and 18570/19, § 35, 6 April 2021; also, by contrast, A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 65, 29 October 2015).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 27728/08

  BYKOVTSEV v. RUSSIA

  It has not been shown that the authorities assessed the first applicant's circumstances, situation and behaviour and other relevant factors before placing him in solitary confinement, that they provided substantive reasons in support of their decision and that they had genuine grounds for extending the period of the applicant's solitary confinement for up to three years and gave increasingly detailed and compelling reasons as time went by (see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 76, 29 October 2015).
• EGMR, 27.02.2018 - 50236/06

  SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA

  In order to avoid any risk of arbitrariness resulting from a decision to place a prisoner in solitary confinement, the decision must be accompanied by procedural safeguards guaranteeing the prisoner's welfare and the proportionality of the measure (see Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 139, ECHR 2006-IX; Onoufriou, cited above, § 70; and A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 76, 29 October 2015).
• EGMR - 28944/22 (anhängig)

  SAADOUNE v. RUSSIA and 1 other application

  In so far as the applicants complain of an alleged risk to their lives and of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment on account of the death penalty imposed on them by the "DPR court", has there been a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, no. 44095/14, § 64, 29 October 2015)?.
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 35880/11

  SHERMATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 30764/13

  RAZIGDAD v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 11378/20 (anhängig)

  O.P.M. AND D.O.M. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 25923/15

  A.R. v. RUSSIA