Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,46595) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Informationsverbund Asyl und Migration (Volltext/Auszüge)
EMRK Art. 3, EMRK Art. 13
Abschiebungsverbot, Libyen, Niederlande - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Libya) No violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
- EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06
- EGMR, 09.07.2014 - 4900/06
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04
Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06
Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (see Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-I). - EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02
CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06
The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees the availability at the national level of a remedy to enforce - and hence to allege non-compliance with - the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order and bearing in mind that Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision (see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 444, ECHR 2005-III. For Article 13 to be applicable, the complaint under a substantive provision of the Convention must be arguable. - EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03
OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06
Given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the alleged risk of torture or ill-treatment materialised and the importance which the Court attaches to Article 3, the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires (i) independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of the applicant's expulsion to the country of destination, and (ii) the provision of an effective possibility of suspending the enforcement of measures whose effects are potentially irreversible (see Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 460; Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, § 35, ECHR 2006-X; and Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 154, ECHR 2007-I).
- EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 47315/13
ADORISIO AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS and 2 other applications
The Government referred to A. v. the Netherlands, no. 4900/06, 20 July 2010, an expulsion case in which the Court had accepted the application of section 8:29 of the General Administrative Law Act and found that the independence of the domestic court had not been compromised.
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
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".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 09.07.2014 - 4900/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2014,55968) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A. CONTRE LES PAYS-BAS
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A. AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
- EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06
- EGMR, 09.07.2014 - 4900/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (1)
- BPatG, 17.11.2011 - 3 ZA (pat) 54/11
Patentnichtigkeitsklageverfahren - mehrere Gerichtsgebühren bei nachträglicher …
Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2014 - 4900/06
Paid on 15/09/2010.
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
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".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2009,67543) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
A. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
- EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 4900/06
- EGMR, 09.07.2014 - 4900/06
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
As to the applicant's further argument that, given the publicity attracted by the criminal proceedings taken against him before the Rotterdam Regional Court, the Libyan authorities had become aware of the nature of the suspicions having arisen against him in the Netherlands and that he would also for that reason risk treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in Libya, the provisional measures judge held, referring to the general principles under Article 3 of the Convention as defined by the Court in its judgments in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, (judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215) and Venkadajalasarma v. the Netherlands (no. 58510/00, 17 February 2004), that also this had not been established.Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, § 111, Series A no. 215), Pranjko v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 45925/99, 23 February 1999) and Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands ((dec.), nos.
- EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99
Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Hilal v. the United Kingdom (no. 45276/99, § 63), ECHR 2001-II), Said v. the Netherlands (no. 2345/02, § 51, ECHR 2005-VI), Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (no. 13284/04, § 45, ECHR 2005-XI), D. and Others v. Turkey (no. 24245/03, §§ 46-48, 22 June 2006), the applicant considered that the Netherlands authorities have fallen short, as regards the scope and meticulousness, of their obligation under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention to investigate meticulously and assess adequately his claim that in Libya there existed for him a real risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3. The Netherlands authorities trivialised his role in and activities for the opposition in Libya and abroad without considering these in the light of statements of the NFSL, the LLHR and Amnesty International, and fully disregarded the consequences of the (publicity of the) Rotterdam jihad trial and of him being declared a danger to national security as a Islamic terrorist suspect and the imminent dangers connected to this imputation for the applicant if he were to be expelled to Libya. - EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02
SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Hilal v. the United Kingdom (no. 45276/99, § 63), ECHR 2001-II), Said v. the Netherlands (no. 2345/02, § 51, ECHR 2005-VI), Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (no. 13284/04, § 45, ECHR 2005-XI), D. and Others v. Turkey (no. 24245/03, §§ 46-48, 22 June 2006), the applicant considered that the Netherlands authorities have fallen short, as regards the scope and meticulousness, of their obligation under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention to investigate meticulously and assess adequately his claim that in Libya there existed for him a real risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3. The Netherlands authorities trivialised his role in and activities for the opposition in Libya and abroad without considering these in the light of statements of the NFSL, the LLHR and Amnesty International, and fully disregarded the consequences of the (publicity of the) Rotterdam jihad trial and of him being declared a danger to national security as a Islamic terrorist suspect and the imminent dangers connected to this imputation for the applicant if he were to be expelled to Libya.
- EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 9940/04
Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung …
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice as regards the Netherlands intelligence and security services is set out in the Court's decision on admissibility in the case of Brinks v. the Netherlands (no. 9940/04, 5 April 2005). - EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 24245/03
D. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Hilal v. the United Kingdom (no. 45276/99, § 63), ECHR 2001-II), Said v. the Netherlands (no. 2345/02, § 51, ECHR 2005-VI), Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (no. 13284/04, § 45, ECHR 2005-XI), D. and Others v. Turkey (no. 24245/03, §§ 46-48, 22 June 2006), the applicant considered that the Netherlands authorities have fallen short, as regards the scope and meticulousness, of their obligation under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention to investigate meticulously and assess adequately his claim that in Libya there existed for him a real risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3. The Netherlands authorities trivialised his role in and activities for the opposition in Libya and abroad without considering these in the light of statements of the NFSL, the LLHR and Amnesty International, and fully disregarded the consequences of the (publicity of the) Rotterdam jihad trial and of him being declared a danger to national security as a Islamic terrorist suspect and the imminent dangers connected to this imputation for the applicant if he were to be expelled to Libya. - EGMR, 09.12.2004 - 2035/04
I.I.N. v. THE NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
The respondent Government submitted that, in view of the Court findings in Jabari v. Turkey (no. 40035/98, § 39, ECHR 2000 VIII) and I.I.N. v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 2035/04, 9 December 2004), the fact that the AIVD believes the applicant to be a threat to national security necessitates an extremely thorough examination of whether the applicant has indeed made a plausible case that there are substantial grounds for concluding that he would be at risk of treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention in case of his expulsion to Libya. - EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45925/99
PRANJKO v. SWEDEN
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
Relying on the Court's considerations in the cases of Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom (30 October 1991, § 111, Series A no. 215), Pranjko v. Sweden ((dec.), no. 45925/99, 23 February 1999) and Taheri Kandomabadi v. the Netherlands ((dec.), nos. - EGMR, 29.06.2004 - 6276/03
TAHERI KANDOMABADI v. the NETHERLANDS
Auszug aus EGMR, 17.11.2009 - 4900/06
6276/03 and 6122/04, 29 June 2004), the Government considered that the guiding principle here is that the "mere possibility of ill-treatment" is insufficient to assume that expulsion is incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention.
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
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".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.