Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KARIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 13+3, Art. 13, Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 13+3 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  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 are substantial grounds for believing that there is 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 (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-V, which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France); see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; 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 (extracts).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  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 are substantial grounds for believing that there is 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 (or "a remedy with automatic suspensive effect" as it is phrased in Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-V, which concerned an asylum seeker wishing to enter the territory of France); see also Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; 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 (extracts).
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  They referred to the case of Kurbanov v. Russia (no. 19293/08), in which the order for the applicant's extradition to Uzbekistan was overruled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 28 May 2008.

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  In so far as the question concerns the quality of national law governing detention pending extradition, the Court points out that it has already faced similar issues in the cases of Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, §§ 138-140, and Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 127-130, 19 June 2008, where the Court found it established that the domestic provisions concerning detention pending extradition fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention.
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99

  ANDRIC v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, §§ 55-56, ECHR 2001-X, and Mehemi v. France (no. 2), no. 53470/99, § 54, ECHR 2003-IV; see also Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 355, ECHR 2005-III; Andriÿ v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999; Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000; and Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 17550/90

  VIJAYANATHAN AND PUSPARAJAH v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  As to the specific category of cases involving expulsion measures, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  In so far as the question concerns the quality of national law governing detention pending extradition, the Court points out that it has already faced similar issues in the cases of Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, §§ 138-140, and Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 127-130, 19 June 2008, where the Court found it established that the domestic provisions concerning detention pending extradition fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention.
• EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 41964/98

  CENNET AYHAN AND MEHMET SALIH AYHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  Further, it is incumbent on the respondent Government claiming non-exhaustion to indicate to the Court with sufficient clarity the remedies to which the applicant did not have recourse and to satisfy the Court that the remedies were effective and available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that they were accessible, were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see Cennet Ayhan and Mehmet Salih Ayhan v. Turkey, no. 41964/98, § 65, 27 June 2006).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01

  PELLUMBI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  As to the specific category of cases involving expulsion measures, the Court has consistently held that an applicant cannot claim to be the "victim" of a measure which is not enforceable (see Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; see also Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005, and Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005).
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 1748/02

  BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  The Court reiterates that the decisive question in assessing the effectiveness of a remedy is whether the applicant could have raised that complaint in order to obtain direct and timely redress, and not merely an indirect protection of the rights guaranteed in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Belousov v. Russia, no. 1748/02, §§ 67-69, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 14.11.2000 - 42216/98

  BENAMAR ET AUTRES contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 60411/00

  ETANJI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 13531/03

  A.D. c. SUISSE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA

  Relying on Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's case-law (he referred to Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008; Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, 29 July 2010; Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, 4 November 2010; and Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, 8 November 2011), he argued that members of Hizb ut-Tahrir were at an increased risk of ill-treatment.

  The Court has examined a number of cases in which the applicants were accused of criminal offences in relation to their involvement with Hizb ut-Tahrir (see Muminov, cited above, §§ 94-98; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 100, 29 July 2010; Yakubov, cited above, §§ 83-94; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 126 and 127, 3 July 2012; and Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, § 136 and 137, 5 February 2013).

• EGMR, 11.10.2011 - 46390/10

  [ENG]

  It notes, firstly, that the order for his expulsion, having been upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court, is final and enforceable (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 358, ECHR 2005-III; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 100, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 90, 29 July 2010; and Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876/08, § 63, 17 June 2010, and contrast Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; Shamayev and Others, cited above, §§ 354-55, ECHR 2005-III; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 60, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  The Court concluded that the circumstances of the case disclosed a violation of Article 5 § 4 (see Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, §§ 124-28, 29 July 2010).

• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  For instance, in Muminov (cited above, § 95) the Court noted that, even though the applicant faced expulsion from Russia to Uzbekistan after his extradition there had been refused, it remained the case that he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities for his alleged involvement in the activities of HT and that there were serious reasons to believe that there was ongoing violent persecution of members or supporters of that organisation, whose underlying aims appeared to be both religious and political and in contradiction with the policies pursued by the government in place (see also Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, §§ 10 and 100, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

  RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has examined a number of cases in which the applicants were accused of criminal offences in relation to their involvement with Hizb ut-Tahrir (see Muminov, cited above, §§ 94-98; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 100, 29 July 2010; Rustamov, cited above, §§ 126 and 127; and the very recent case of Kasymakhunov, cited above, § 123).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 12106/09

  [ENG]

  As regards the applicant's allegation that detainees suffer ill-treatment in Uzbekistan, the Court has recently acknowledged that a general problem still persists in that country in this regard (see, for example, Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, §§ 79-85, 29 July 2010; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 120-121, 24 April 2008; and Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008).
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 7265/10

  [ENG]

  The applicant further stated that in a number of recent judgments concerning similar situations, including the cases of Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia (no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010) and Karimov v. Russia (no. 54219/08, 29 July 2010), the Court acknowledged that the problem of ill-treatment of detainees in Uzbekistan remained enduring and that there was no indication of any fundamental improvement in that area.
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Nothing in the above actions by the domestic authorities indicates that they acknowledged that there had been or would have been a violation of Article 3 or that the applicant's extradition order had been deprived of its legal effect (see Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 90, 29 July 2010).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  It has adopted the same stance in cases where the execution of the deportation or extradition order has been stayed indefinitely or otherwise deprived of legal effect and where any decision by the authorities to proceed with deportation can be appealed against before the relevant courts (see Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 89, 29 July 2010, with further extensive references).
• EGMR, 11.12.2014 - 74759/13

  FOZIL NAZAROV v. RUSSIA

  It has found, through reference to material originating from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that (as reliable international evidence has demonstrated) there is a persistent and serious issue as regards the ill-treatment of detainees ‒ with the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate" ‒ and that there is no concrete evidence demonstrating any fundamental improvement in that area (see, among many others, Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008; Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 99, 29 July 2010; Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, §§ 81 and 82, 8 November 2011; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 125, 3 July 2012; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, cited above, § 141, 2 October 2012; Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, § 134, 5 February 2013; and Kasymakhunov, cited above, § 122).
• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 9237/14

  MYALICHEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 33403/11

  K. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 22636/13

  NIZAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2024 - 82348/17

  D.S. v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 24147/11

  I. v. THE NETHERLANDS