Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention Speediness of review) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

• milo.bamf.de

  MRK, Art 3; MRK, Art 4; MRK, Art 5 Abs 1
  Verstoß Maltas gegen Art. 3 EMRK

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Aden Ahmed v. Malta

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ADEN AHMED v. MALTA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (55)Zitiert selbst (40)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.07.2010 - 24340/08

  Abschiebungshaft, Malta, Rechtsweggarantie, effektiver Rechtsschutz, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Most of the domestic remedies available to challenge the lawfulness of detention (Article 409A of the Criminal Code - Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta; Article 25A (9) of the Immigration Act - Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta; and a constitutional application) had already been declared by the Court to be ineffective and insufficient for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 in the case of Louled Massoud v. Malta (no. 24340/08, §§ 43-46, 27 July 2010).

  The notion of "lawfulness" under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention has the same meaning as in Article 5 § 1, so that the arrested or detained person is entitled to a review of the "lawfulness" of his detention in the light not only of the requirements of domestic law, but also of the Convention, the general principles embodied therein and the aim of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 § 1 (see E. v. Norway, 29 August 1990, § 50, Series A no. 181, and Louled Massoud v. Malta, no. 24340/08, § 39, 27 July 2010; and Rahmani and Dineva v. Bulgaria, no. 20116/08, § 75, 10 May 2012).

• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  62566/00 et seq., 10 January 2002).

  62566/00 et seq., 10 January 2002).

• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Moreover, the dormitories were equipped with separate lavatories allowing for a degree of privacy (see, by contrast, Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 73, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 19.01.2012 - 39472/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  39472/07 and 39474/07, § 94, 19 January 2012).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 29787/03

  RIAD ET IDIAB c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. However, the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, §§ 95-96, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  (no. 40907/98, ECHR 2001-II), she submitted that account had to be taken of the cumulative effects of those conditions and of her specific allegations.
• EGMR, 28.11.2000 - 29462/95

  REHBOCK c. SLOVENIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Where an individual's personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State's compliance with the requirement of a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Kadem, cited above, §§ 44-45; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 82-86, ECHR 2000 XII, where the Court considered periods of seventeen and twenty-six days excessive for deciding on the lawfulness of the applicant's detention; and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the "speediness" requirement).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  A failure on their part to submit convincing evidence on material conditions of detention may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Gubin v. Russia, no. 8217/04, § 56, 17 June 2010, and Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 113, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.06.2006 - 7064/05

  MAMEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  Where an individual's personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the State's compliance with the requirement of a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for example, Kadem, cited above, §§ 44-45; Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 82-86, ECHR 2000 XII, where the Court considered periods of seventeen and twenty-six days excessive for deciding on the lawfulness of the applicant's detention; and Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, § 96, 1 June 2006, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was found to be in breach of the "speediness" requirement).
• EGMR, 01.03.2007 - 72967/01

  BELEVITSKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.07.2013 - 55352/12

  93. While it is true that the Court has previously found that the fact that an applicant was obliged to live, sleep and use the toilet in the same cell with so many other inmates [70] was itself sufficient to cause distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the Article 3 threshold (see for example Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, § 77, 1 March 2007), in the circumstances of the present case, it does not appear to be the case.
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 12186/08

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 8256/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 09.01.2003 - 55263/00

  KADEM v. MALTA
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 8217/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 64812/01

  ALVER v. ESTONIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 35892/97

  SABEUR BEN ALI v. MALTA
• EGMR, 21.04.2009 - 33740/06

  STEPHENS v. MALTA (no. 2)
• EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 2012/08

  [ENG]
• EKMR, 05.05.1982 - 9403/81

  X. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EKMR, 01.12.1993 - 20832/92

  A.K. v. AUSTRIA
• EKMR, 11.05.1983 - 10230/82

  X. c. SUEDE
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …
• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9697/82
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 19.03.1991 - 11069/84
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7654/76
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 106/02

  BENEDIKTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR - 57875/09 (anhängig)

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 30251/03

  ROMAN KARASEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2006 - 16631/04

  ZARB v. MALTA
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 7481/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 39249/03

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 47287/15

  Ungarn wegen Inhaftierung von Flüchtlingen verurteilt

  While it is true that asylum seekers are considered particularly vulnerable because of everything they might have been through during their migration and the traumatic experiences they were likely to have endured previously (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 232), for the Court, the applicants in the present case were not more vulnerable than any other adult asylum-seeker detained at the time (see, Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, § 100, 26 November 2015, and, a contrario, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, §§ 97-99, 23 July 2013).
• EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 28005/12

  M.N. AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  The Court considers that the Government should normally be able to illustrate the practical effectiveness of a remedy with examples of domestic case-law, but it is ready to accept that this may be more difficult in smaller jurisdictions, such as in the present case, where the number of cases of a specific kind may be fewer than in the larger jurisdictions (see Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 63, 23 July 2013).
• VG Oldenburg, 23.07.2014 - 12 B 1217/14

  Haft; Malta; systemische Mängel; Überstellung

  Rn. 16 Der EGMR hat im Hinblick auf den Schutzbereich von Art. 3 EMRK in seiner Entscheidung vom 23. Juli 2013 (Aden Achmed gegen Malta, Nr. 55352/12, HUDOC) ausgeführt, Haftbedingungen müssten die Menschenwürde der Gefangenen berücksichtigen und dürften diese nicht Leid und Not aussetzen.

  Rn. 30 Auch der EGMR äußerte in seiner Entscheidung Aden Ahmed gegen Malta vom 23. Juli 2013 (Nr. 55352/12, a.a.O.) zu den von der Antragstellerin geschilderten Haftbedingungen von sehr vielen Menschen in einem Raum ohne jegliche Privatsphäre, großer Hitze im Sommer und Kälte im Winter mangels ausreichender Belüftung bzw. Heizung, keiner Versorgung mit angemessener Nahrung, einem Mangel an weiblichem Personal in Haftbereichen für Frauen und einer Sperre des Zugangs nach draußen über Monate hinweg, ernsthafte Bedenken.

• EGMR, 26.11.2015 - 10290/13

  MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA

  The relevant articles of the above mentioned Acts can be found in Aden Ahmed v. Malta (no. 55352/12, §§ 31-35, 23 July 2013).

  The applicant submitted that there existed no effective domestic remedy which should have been used; in fact most of the Government's arguments had already been rejected by the Court in its judgment in the case of Aden Ahmed v. Malta (no. 55352/12, 23 July 2013) concerning an immigrant detained at around the same time as the applicant in the present case.

• VG Karlsruhe, 08.10.2014 - A 8 K 345/14

  Systemische Mängel im Asylsystem Maltas

  In vielen Bereichen sei die Versorgung der Grundbedürfnisse jedoch noch lückenhaft und vor allem bei der immer wieder vorkommenden Überbelegung inakzeptabel (vgl. auch Aden Ahmed gegen Malta, Entscheidung des EGMR vom 23. Juli 2013, Nr. 55352/12, HUDOC).

  Inhaftierung von unbestimmter Dauer des anschließenden Verfahrens treffe grundsätzlich auch Dublin-Rückkehrer, weil sie entweder in den Stand vor ihrer Ausreise - also in aller Regel als illegal Eingereiste - versetzt würden oder sogar wegen Flucht aus der Haft in Malta wegen illegaler Ausreise zur Strafhaft verurteilt würden (so z.B. im Fall Aden Ahmed gegen Malta, Entscheidung des EGMR vom 23. Juli 2013, Nr. 55352/12, HUDOC).

• VG Minden, 12.01.2015 - 1 L 551/14

  Inhaftierung, Haftbedingungen, Malta, Dublinverfahren, Detention Center, …

  In vielen Bereichen sei die Versorgung der Grundbedürfnisse jedoch noch lückenhaft und vor allem bei der immer wieder vorkommenden Überbelegung inakzeptabel (vgl. auch Aden Ahmed gegen Malta, Entscheidung des EGMR vom 23.07.2013, Nr. 55352/12, HUDOC).

  Inhaftierung von unbestimmter Dauer des anschließenden Verfahrens treffe grundsätzlich auch Dublin-Rückkehrer, weil sie entweder in den Stand vor ihrer Ausreise - also in aller Regel als illegal Eingereiste - versetzt würden oder sogar wegen Flucht aus der Haft in Malta wegen illegaler Ausreise zur Strafhaft verurteilt würden (so z. B. im Fall Aden Ahmed gegen Malta, Entscheidung des EGMR vom 23.07.2013, Nr. 55352/12, HUDOC).

• EGMR, 03.05.2016 - 56796/13

  ABDI MAHAMUD v. MALTA

  The relevant articles of the above-mentioned Acts can be found in Aden Ahmed v. Malta (no. 55352/12, §§ 31-35, 23 July 2013).

  The applicant submitted that there existed no effective domestic remedy which should have been used; in fact most of the Government's arguments had already been rejected by the Court in its judgment in the case of Aden Ahmed v. Malta (no. 55352/12, 23 July 2013) concerning an immigrant detained at around the same time as the applicant in the present case.

• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 43985/13

  ABDI AHMED AND OTHERS v. MALTA

  The relevant provision can be found in the judgment of Aden Ahmed v. Malta (no. 55352/12, § 34, 23 July 2013).

  Moreover, given that the allegedly precarious situation of 9 July 2013 has now ended and that preventive action is no longer necessary (such as would be the case for example with alleged lack of medical treatment and conditions of detention cases), it cannot, at this stage, be said that the duration of those proceedings renders them devoid of their effectiveness (see, a contrario, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, §§ 63-64, 23 July 2013).

• VG Düsseldorf, 05.02.2015 - 13 L 3079/14

  Dublin-Verfahren Abschiebungsanordnung Zustellungsfiktion Malta systemische …

  Rn. 62 Siehe hierzu AIDA, Asylum Information Database, "National Country Report Malta" aus Mai 2014, S. 55 ff.; Global Detention Project "Immigration Detention in Malta" aus Januar 2014, S. 7; UNHCR "UNHCR's Position on the Detention of Asylum-seekers in Malta" vom 18. September 2013; Jesuits Refugee Service Europe (JRS) "Protection Interrupted, National Report Malta" aus Juni 2013, S. 5 f.; Vgl. EGMR, Urteil vom 9. Dezember 2013 - 55352/12 -, Rz. 108 m.w.N.
• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  Rn. 174 The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the failure of the Constitutional Court to conduct a review of the lawfulness of his detention in a speedy and effective manner (see Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, § 115, 23 July 2013 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 6865/19

  FEILAZOO v. MALTA
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 19090/20

  FENECH v. MALTA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 72710/11

  YARASHONEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 2585/06

  DANILOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.10.2015 - 56854/13

  STORY v. MALTA
• VG Oldenburg, 17.02.2014 - 3 B 6974/13

  Abschiebungsanordnung; Dublin; Dublin II; Dublin III; Grundrecht; Krankheit; …
• EGMR, 17.10.2019 - 4633/15

  BIIMURZAEVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 13320/02

  KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.12.2014 - 8067/12

  LONIC v. CROATIA
• VG Hannover, 23.02.2018 - 10 B 921/18

  Malta; systemische Mängel
• EGMR, 22.10.2024 - 1766/23

  J.B. AND OTHERS v. MALTA
• VG Stuttgart, 03.09.2021 - A 8 K 3990/21

  Schwachstellen des Asylverfahrens bzw. der Aufnahmebedingungen in Malta; …
• VG Düsseldorf, 09.04.2015 - 8 L 1100/15

  Abschiebung eines Asylsuchenden nach Malta hinsichtlich Zuständigkeit der …
• VG Gelsenkirchen, 16.01.2015 - 1a L 2036/14

  Dublin III; Malta; systemische Mängel; systemisches Versagen; Asylantrag; …
• VG Freiburg, 06.03.2018 - A 4 K 10752/17

  Dublin - Keine systemischen Mängel mehr in Malta
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 25794/13

  ABDULLAHI ELMI v. MALTA and 1 other application
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  S.H. v. MALTA
• VG Düsseldorf, 02.02.2015 - 13 L 2852/14

  Dublinverfahren, Malta, Inhaftierung, unmenschliche Behandlung, erniedrigende …
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 72754/11

  MUSAEV v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.06.2020 - 42779/12

  NUR AHMED v. UKRAINE and 5 other applications
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 52902/15

  SAKKAL AND FARES v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 32863/05

  L.M. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 3342/11

  RICHMOND YAW c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 27.11.2025 - 36916/19

  M.A. v. TÜRKIYE
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 12427/22

  A.D. v. MALTA
• EGMR, 17.11.2016 - 24037/08

  LELYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 14516/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.07.2020 - 77647/11

  AHMED NOOR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• VG Gelsenkirchen, 30.03.2015 - 7a L 340/15

  Asyl; Marokko; Malta
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 18152/11

  ERKENOV v. TURKEY
• VG München, 12.06.2015 - M 25 S 15.50265

  Dublin-Verfahren: Keine systemischen Mängel der Aufnahmebedingungen in Malta
• VG München, 17.03.2015 - M 7 S 14.50627

  Dublin-Verfahren; Antrag unzulässig; Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand …
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 45797/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 69250/11

  ALEKSANDR SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 30.09.2021 - 29662/13

  SHOYGO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 21.09.2016 - 42337/12

  SUSO MUSA AND 4 OTHER CASES AGAINST MALTA
• EGMR - 37547/22 (anhängig)

  D.J. v. TÜRKİYE
• VG Freiburg, 06.03.2018 - A4 K 10752/17

  Sri Lanka: Dublin: keine systemischen Mängel in Malta, kein vorläufiger …
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 1009/16

  BOUDRAA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 5888/10

  MUCALIM v. THE NETHERLANDS AND MALTA
• EGMR - 30737/24 (anhängig)

  M.S. v. MALTA
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 60831/15

  Z.K. AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 14.03.2017 - 64724/10

  OJEI v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 1088/10

  [ENG]
• VG Dresden, 25.03.2015 - 3 L 744/14

  Dublinverfahren, Malta, systemische Mängel, aufschiebende Wirkung, …