Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
AUAD v. BULGARIA
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Lebanon) Violation of Art. 13 Violation of Art. 5-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
(Verfahrensmitteilung)
Auad v. Bulgaria
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (42) Zitiert selbst (44)
- EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07
Briten dürfen Hassprediger an USA ausliefern
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, § 106, 6 July 2010). - EGMR - 36742/08 (anhängig)
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88
Jens Söring
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
In those circumstances, it considers that its finding regarding Article 3 amounts of itself to sufficient just satisfaction (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, §§ 126-27, Series A no. 161; Chahal, cited above, § 158; and Saadi, cited above, § 188).
- EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07
Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
What is relevant in this context is whether the applicant is able to obtain protection against and seek redress for the acts perpetrated against him or her (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 40, Reports 1997-III; T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III; Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39642/03, 1 March 2005; N. v. Finland, no. 38885/02, § 163, 26 July 2005; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 137 and 147, 11 January 2007; N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 110, 17 July 2008; F.H. v. Sweden, no. 32621/06, § 102, 20 January 2009; and N. v. Sweden, no. 23505/09, §§ 55-62, 20 July 2010). - EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04
Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
What is relevant in this context is whether the applicant is able to obtain protection against and seek redress for the acts perpetrated against him or her (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 40, Reports 1997-III; T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III; Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39642/03, 1 March 2005; N. v. Finland, no. 38885/02, § 163, 26 July 2005; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 137 and 147, 11 January 2007; N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 110, 17 July 2008; F.H. v. Sweden, no. 32621/06, § 102, 20 January 2009; and N. v. Sweden, no. 23505/09, §§ 55-62, 20 July 2010). - EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 43844/98
Dubliner Übereinkommen, Dublinverfahren, Großbritannien, Sri Lanka, sichere …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
What is relevant in this context is whether the applicant is able to obtain protection against and seek redress for the acts perpetrated against him or her (see H.L.R. v. France, 29 April 1997, § 40, Reports 1997-III; T.I. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 43844/98, ECHR 2000-III; Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 39642/03, 1 March 2005; N. v. Finland, no. 38885/02, § 163, 26 July 2005; Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 137 and 147, 11 January 2007; N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 110, 17 July 2008; F.H. v. Sweden, no. 32621/06, § 102, 20 January 2009; and N. v. Sweden, no. 23505/09, §§ 55-62, 20 July 2010). - EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98
Maestri ./. Italien
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
Furthermore, it follows from the Convention, and from Article 1 in particular, that in ratifying the Convention the Contracting States undertake to ensure that their domestic legislation is compatible with it (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I, and, more recently, Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, § 119, 6 January 2011). - EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 32733/08
Dublin II-VO, Dublinverfahren, Griechenland, Großbritannien, Refoulement, Iran, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
The Court reiterates that under its case-law removal to an intermediary country does not affect the responsibility of the expelling State to ensure that the applicant is not exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 as a result of the decision to expel (see T.I. v. the United Kingdom, cited above; Salah Sheekh, cited above, § 141; K.R.S. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32733/08, 2 December 2008; Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 88; Babar Ahmad and Others, cited above, §§ 113-16; and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, §§ 338-61). - EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05
GEBREMEDHIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
The second requirement is that the person concerned should have access to a remedy with automatic suspensive effect (see Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 81-83, ECHR 2002-I, and Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-II; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 101, 11 December 2008; Abdolkhani and Karimnia, cited above, § 108; and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 293 in fine). - EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10
They had an opportunity to see, hear and assess his demeanour, and were thus in a position to test the credibility of his fears and the veracity of his account (see, mutatis mutandis, Ahmed v. Austria, 17 December 1996, § 42, Reports 1996-VI; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 41, ECHR 2000-VIII; Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, §§ 82-83, 22 September 2009; and R.C. v. Sweden, no. 41827/07, § 52, 9 March 2010). - EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91
QUINN c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 38885/02
N. v. FINLAND
- EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 75951/01
VIASU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 8256/07
[FRE]
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 2947/06
ISMOILOV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 24340/08
Abschiebungshaft, Malta, Rechtsweggarantie, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …
- EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 53080/07
MIAH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 03.05.2005 - 43369/98
GORDYEYEV v. POLAND
- EGMR, 25.01.2011 - 38851/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 14160/08
DOLINSKIY v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 39642/03
HEADLEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 21.10.2008 - 10641/08
M.H. v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 22.01.2002 - 53490/99
EID v. ITALY
- EKMR, 14.01.1991 - 15933/89
OSMAN v. the UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57
- EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02
CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
- EuGH, 30.11.2009 - C-357/09
Kadzoev - Visa, Asyl, Einwanderung und andere Politiken betreffend den freien …
- EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 1365/07
Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Schutz von Ehe und Familie, Ausweisung, …
- EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06
NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99
ANDRIC v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90
VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE
- EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 28347/16
BAICULESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 11.10.2001 - 51342/99
Fall K. gegen DEUTSCHLAND
- EGMR, 18.11.2010 - 42360/08
[FRE]
- EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01
PELLUMBI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00
ETANJI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 03.12.2009 - 19576/08
DAOUDI c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 42216/98
BENAMAR ET AUTRES contre la FRANCE
- EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 14049/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 26876/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03
A.D. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 22.07.2014 - 22681/09
[ENG]
In any event, removal to a third country would not allay the applicants" fears per se, or remove the respondent State's obligations under Articles 2 and 3, as long as the risk of repatriation to their country of origin existed (Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 106, 11 October 2011).Bearing in mind that even national security concerns do not take priority over a person's rights under Articles 2 and 3 (see Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 100, 11 October 2011), the unfavourable assessment of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding a foreigner seeking international protection - which may be motivated by a desire to maintain good international relations or other political interests - should not be permitted to override the decisions of the Ministry of the Interior, the competent authority in charge of assessing individual risk factors in the light of Convention standards.
- EGMR, 12.02.2013 - 58149/08
[ENG]
It should, however, be pointed out that unlike that provision, Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention does not lay down maximum time-limits; the question whether the length of deportation proceedings could affect the lawfulness of detention under this provision thus depends solely on the particular circumstances of each case (see Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 128, 11 October 2011).The mere fact that he was granted refugee status eleven years ago, in 2001, cannot be regarded as sufficient proof in that respect (contrast Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 103, 11 October 2011, where the grant of humanitarian status had taken place less than two years before the Court's examination of the case), especially bearing in mind that the applicants did not provide any information about the reasons for which the State Refugee Agency decided to grant them refugee status (see paragraph 9 above).
- EGMR, 22.09.2015 - 62116/12
Aufnahmebedingungen, Ungarn, Inhaftierung, Recht auf Freiheit, Abschiebung, …
If such proceedings are not prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under Article 5 § 1 (f) (see Chahal, cited above, § 113; Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 128, 11 October 2011).
- EGMR, 10.10.2019 - 34016/18
O.D. ./. Bulgarien - Abschiebung nach Syrien würde gegen Folterverbot verstoßen
Le droit interne applicable concernant l'asile et la protection humanitaire a été exposé dans l'arrêt Auad c. Bulgarie, no 46390/10, §§ 27-31, 11 octobre 2011. - EGMR, 15.04.2021 - 5560/19
K.I. c. FRANCE
Devant une telle menace, elle considère qu'il est légitime que les États contractants fassent preuve d'une grande fermeté à l'égard de ceux qui contribuent à des actes de terrorisme, qu'elle ne saurait en aucun cas cautionner (Daoudi c. France, no 19576/08, § 65, 3 décembre 2009, Boutagni c. France, no 42360/08, § 45, 18 novembre 2010, Auad c. Bulgarie, no 46390/10, § 95, 11 octobre 2011, A.M. c. France, précité, § 112 et, O.D. c. Bulgarie, no 34016/18, § 46, 10 octobre 2019). - EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19
FEILAZOO v. MALTA
With one note verbale over fourteen months, the authorities can hardly be regarded as having taken active and diligent steps with a view to deporting him (compare Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, §§ 130 and 132, 11 October 2011 and Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, §§ 76-77, 12 February 2013). - EGMR, 03.02.2022 - 20611/17
KOMISSAROV v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Furthermore, the Court has, in a number of cases, unequivocally held that fixed time-limits are not a requirement of Article 5 § 1(f), and that it will deal with each complaint on a case-by-case basis in order to decide if detention has become unlawful (see A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus, nos. 41903/10 and 41911/10, § 190, 21 July 2015; Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, § 72, 12 February 2013; Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 128, 11 October 2011; and Bordovskiy v. Russia, no. 49491/99, § 50, 8 February 2005).In and of themselves they are neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention (see, for example, Gallardo Sanchez, cited above, § 39, and Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 131, 11 October 2011, § 131, in which the Court made it clear that even if fixed time-limits were complied with, it would still find an applicant's detention to be in breach of Article 5 § 1(f) if deportation was not pursued with due diligence).
- EGMR, 05.12.2023 - 30919/20
H.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
It referred at the outset to country guidance in this Court's judgment in Auad v. Bulgaria, (no. 46390/10, 11 October 2011), and the domestic cases of KK.The judgment of the Court in Auad v. Bulgaria, (no. 46390/10, 11 October 2011) was consistent with the general proposition that in the absence of particular individual circumstances, such as the prior involvement with Fatah and acts of violence in Auad, there was not a real risk that an individual such as the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 upon return.
- EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 71321/17
M.D. v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications
This approach cannot be considered compatible with the need for independent and rigorous scrutiny that is required in cases concerning expulsion (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, no. 22414/93, § 80, 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, and Trabelsi v. Belgium, no. 140/10, § 118, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), where the Court held that the activities of the individual in question, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration when substantial grounds have been shown for believing that that individual would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to another State; see also Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, § 101, 11 October 2011). - EGMR, 24.03.2015 - 11620/07
GALLARDO SANCHEZ c. ITALIE
La Cour rappelle que, à l'inverse de ce que le Gouvernement allègue, le respect des délais prévus par le droit interne ne peut pas être considéré comme entraînant automatiquement la compatibilité de la détention avec les exigences découlant de l'article 5 § 1 f) de la Convention (Auad c. Bulgarie, no 46390/10, § 131, 11 octobre 2011). - Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.05.2014 - C-146/14
Mahdi - Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts - Rückführungsrichtlinie …
- EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 49857/20
Frankreich verurteilt: Abschiebungen nach Russland unzulässig
- EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 70055/10
S.J. c. BELGIQUE
- EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 53254/20
U c. FRANCE
- EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12
J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 43875/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 33210/11
[FRE]
- EGMR, 20.02.2020 - 5115/18
M.A. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 49867/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 75325/11
N.M. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 26.04.2022 - 29836/20
M.A.M. c. SUISSE
- EGMR, 08.06.2017 - 75832/13
M.M. c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 76660/12
I.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 50925/10
A.K. v. THE NETHERLANDS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS
- EGMR, 19.03.2024 - 12174/22
KIRKOROV v. LITHUANIA
- EGMR, 17.05.2022 - 35422/16
ALI REZA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 13.11.2018 - 75570/11
G.T. c. GRÈCE
- EGMR, 10.02.2015 - 9356/11
S.C. c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 21.01.2014 - 23604/11
[FRE]
- EGMR, 30.09.2021 - 29662/13
SHOYGO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 2738/11
ABDI MOHAMMED v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR - 7829/23 (anhängig)
M.A. v. POLAND
- EGMR - 29570/21 (anhängig)
R.T. v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR - 45611/21 (anhängig)
E.Y. v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 45237/08
[ENG]
- EGMR - 13754/25 (anhängig)
K.A. v. TÜRKİYE
- EGMR - 12347/25 (anhängig)
C.I. v. CYPRUS
- EGMR, 09.04.2026 - 49068/20
BAYRAMALIYEV v. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 16526/19
D ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 2134/10
TABASSUM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
- EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 70517/11
MAHAMED AHMED v. THE NETHERLANDS
- EGMR - 20148/25 (anhängig)
M.S. v. TÜRKİYE and 2 other applications
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".