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 ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 29.04.2019 - 12148/18

  Abschiebung eines Terroristen: In Algerien geht es nicht unmenschlich zu

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  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, 17.11.2020 - 889/19

  B AND C v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  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, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  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, 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.
• RG, 29.09.1906 - V 22/06

  Öffentliche Flüsse

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  22/06/2022.
• EGMR, 25.02.2020 - 68377/17

  A.S.N. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  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

  M.O. v. SWITZERLAND

  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, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 55978/20

  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:.
• 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).