Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  N.K. v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Substantive aspect) (Tajikistan);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  N.K. v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  In so far as the applicant's complaint concerned the risk of ill-treatment that he ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by Tajik authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  GAFOROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  In so far as the applicant's complaint concerned the risk of ill-treatment that he ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by Tajik authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 58182/14

  K.I. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  In so far as the applicant's complaint concerned the risk of ill-treatment that he ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by Tajik authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above (see paragraph 5 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, with further references, and, in the context of removals, O.O. v. Russia, cited above, § 64).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  NIZOMKHON DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  In so far as the applicant's complaint concerned the risk of ill-treatment that he ran in Tajikistan, the present case is identical to cases in which the Court previously established that individuals whose extradition was sought by Tajik authorities on charges of religiously or politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Tajikistan (see K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, 3 October 2013; and Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012; Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 31-35 and 39-45, 17 July 2014; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; and Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30044/10, § 80, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012; Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 31-35 and 39-45, 17 July 2014; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; and Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30044/10, § 80, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 26.01.2017 - 42332/14

  KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  Lastly, in the view of the above and having regard to the facts as alleged by the applicant and his representatives and confirmed by their detailed written statements, and the Government's failure to substantiate their version of facts about voluntary nature of the applicant's return with results of the domestic investigation or other evidence (see Appendix, "Other relevant information" Summary of the parties' submissions; and see Khamidkariyev v. Russia, no. 42332/14, § 120, 26 January 2017), the Court is satisfied that the applicant has been subject of an illegal forcible transfer by unidentified persons with the passive or active involvement of State agents (see Savriddin Dzhurayev, cited above, §§ 177-85, 197-204, 214-19).
• EGMR, 07.07.2020 - 30044/10

  DIMO DIMOV ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose a violation of Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in the following judgments (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 121, 10 January 2012; Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, §§ 31-35 and 39-45, 17 July 2014; Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006; and Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30044/10, § 80, 7 July 2020).
• EGMR, 21.05.2019 - 36321/16

  O.O. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 45761/18

  The Court also considers that given the circumstances of the present case, the Russian Government had not complied with an indication of an interim measure and nothing had objectively impeded that compliance (see O.O. v. Russia, no. 36321/16, §§ 59-63, 21 May 2019).
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 20999/14

  MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 27584/20

  K.J. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, taking into account the circumstances of S.K.'s case, which match the pattern of other cases where applicants last seen in the custody of State authorities have then disappeared (see, for example, Mukhitdinov v. Russia, no. 20999/14, § 62, 21 May 2015, and, as the most recent examples, A.Y. and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 29958/20 and 2 others, §§ 8-12, 17 January 2023, and N.K. v. Russia [Committee], no. 45761/18, 29 March 2022), the Court is satisfied that on 10 September 2020 S.K. was illegally transferred by Russian State agents into the custody of North Korean officials.