Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  T.K. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Tajikistan);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

• milo.bamf.de

  MRK, Art 3
  Tadschikistan: Mögliche Verletzung des Art. 3 EMRK durch Rückführung ohne erneute Prüfung der Verfolgungsgefahr im Falle einer Rückkehr

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  T.K. AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.04.2019 - 12148/18

  Abschiebung eines Terroristen: In Algerien geht es nicht unmenschlich zu

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  24. Regarding the third aspect (other individuals' experiences referred to by the applicants), we would emphasise the following: at the domestic level, the examination of requests for asylum or subsidiary protection is, in general, based on an assessment of the account given by the individual asylum-seeker, as well as on evidence or documents presented by and relied on by the applicant, reviewed in the light of available information about the country of origin, an approach that is similar to the approach adopted by the Court in such cases (see, for example, F.G. v. Sweden, cited above, § 114, and A.M. v. France, no. 12148/18, § 117, 29 April 2019).
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  86. The Court notes that it has never been alleged that the first applicant was only nominally a member of the IRPT, or that he never took part in any activities that may have brought his political views to the attention of the Tajik authorities (compare and contrast Latipov v. Russia, no. 77658/11, § 92, 12 December 2013).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 889/19

  Gambia: Rückführung rechtswidrig; kein staatlicher Schutz für LGTBI vor …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  82. Therefore, the fact that it has not been credibly established that the applicants were ill-treated or threatened in their country of origin in the past is not decisive for the Court when assessing whether there is a real risk of them being subjected to ill-treatment in the event of their removal (see, for a similar situation, B and C v. Switzerland, nos. 889/19 and 43987/16, §§ 58-62, 17 November 2020).

• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  56. The Court, being the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 114 and 126, 20 March 2018), considers that the case falls to be examined solely under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.".
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 68377/17

  NAGPAL AND MADAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  81. Moreover, the Court points out that, while past persecution or mistreatment would weigh heavily in favour of a positive assessment of risk of future persecution, its absence is not a decisive factor (see the UNHCR Note on Burden and Standard of Proof in Refugee Claims, referred to in paragraph 46 above; see also A.S.N. and Others v. the Netherlands, nos. 68377/17 and 530/18, § 119, 25 February 2020, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 41282/16

  Eritrea: Die aktuelle Menschenrechtslage in Eritrea befreit Asylantragsteller …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  The Court has no grounds to question the conclusion reached by the Lithuanian authorities that the applicants did not present a credible and consistent account of past threats or persecution (see M.O. v. Switzerland, no. 41282/16, § 73, 20 June 2017, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 26.07.2005 - 38885/02

  N. v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  Nonetheless, it observes that, even when some of an applicant's statements are found not to be credible, that does not necessarily constitute grounds to doubt his or her overall credibility, or to dismiss all of his or her statements (see N. v. Finland, no. 38885/02, §§ 154-56, 26 July 2005).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 58182/14

  K.I. v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  In particular, K.I. v. Russia (no. 58182/14, 7 November 2017) concerned an individual who had been accused of politically and religiously motivated crimes and in respect of whom the Tajik authorities had issued an international search and arrest warrant - by contrast with the applicants in the present case.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.02.2025 - 2559/23

  A.B. AND Y.W. v. MALTA

  In any event, and bearing in mind the shortcomings referred to by the applicants (see paragraph 51 above), the Court considers it relevant to reiterate that while past persecution or mistreatment would weigh heavily in favour of a positive assessment of risk of future persecution, its absence is not a decisive factor (see T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, § 81, 22 March 2022; see also A.S.N. and Others v. the Netherlands, nos. 68377/17 and 530/18, § 119, 25 February 2020, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 20.12.2022 - 37241/21

  S.H. v. MALTA

  Thus, the Court finds that there would be a violation of Article 3 if the applicant were to be removed to Bangladesh without a fresh assessment of his claim that, as a journalist who reported on the 2018 election irregularities, he would be at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned (see for a similar approach T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, § 90, 22 March 2022, and M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, § 80, 26 April 2022).
• EGMR - 23441/25 (anhängig)

  A.M. v. BULGARIA

  Did the examination of the applicant's applications for international protection comply with the requirements flowing from the Court's case-law (see, in general, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 119-27, 23 March 2016, and J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, §§ 85-105, 23 August 2016)? In particular, did the Bulgarian authorities and courts comply with their procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess adequately and rigorously, before removing the applicant to Uzbekistan, the risk that he might be subjected to treatment contrary to that provision in that country (compare, mutatis mutandis, M.D. and M.A. v. Belgium, no. 58689/12, §§ 56, 57, 64-65, 19 January 2016; M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine, no. 17189/11, §§ 121 and 127, 11 June 2020; T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, §§ 70, 80-82, 85 and 89, 22 March 2022; M.A.M. v. Switzerland, no. 29836/20, §§ 74 and 78, 26 April 2022; S.H. v. Malta, no. 37241/21, §§ 79, 84-87 and 94-96, 20 December 2022; A.M.A. v. the Netherlands, no. 23048/19, §§ 70, 72, 75-78, 24 October 2023; J.A. and A.A. v. Türkiye, no. 80206/17, §§ 61, 65 and 74, 6 February 2024; and A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta, no. 2559/23, §§ 65 and 68-69, 4 February 2025)?.
• EGMR - 27255/24 (anhängig)

  S.D. v. LITHUANIA

  In the light of the applicant's claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Tajikistan (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 110-16, 23 March 2016; K.I. v. Russia, no. 58182/14, §§ 25-28, 7 November 2017; and T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 55978/20, § 75, 22 March 2022)?.