Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Mamadaliyev v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 116, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  In such circumstances, the Court is not convinced that the issue of the risk of ill-treatment was subjected to rigorous scrutiny in the extradition or refugee-status proceedings (see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, § 148, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or for their unfettered access to detention facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 132-33, 3 October 2013).

• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 45917/99

  ANDRIC v. SWEDEN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  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; Andric 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, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  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, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  The Court will assess whether the applicant faces a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  For a summary of the relevant general principles emerging from the Court's case-law see Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, §§ 92-100, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 65730/01

  PELLUMBI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  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, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  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, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 5614/13

  For a summary of relevant domestic and international law, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, §§ 47-51, 16 October 2012).
• 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, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  Kirgisistan: nicht mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit drohende …

  118. The Court notes that between 2012 and 2016 it considered nine cases concerning extraditions of ethnic Uzbeks from Russia to Kyrgyzstan (see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, 17 April 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, no. 42351/13, 17 July 2014; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, 24 July 2014; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, 15 October 2015; Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, 22 October 2015; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; and R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 46721/15

  ALLANAZAROVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour a toutefois relevé à plusieurs reprises dans des affaires qui concernaient des cas d'extradition que les autorités russes interprètent l'article 1 § 1-1 de la loi sur les réfugiés d'une manière stricte, excluant son application dans le cas d'allégations d'un risque d'être soumis à de mauvais traitements pour des raisons autres que celles qu'il énumère (voir, à titre d'exemples, Turgunov c. Russie, no 15590/14, §§ 20-24, 22 octobre 2015, Khalikov c. Russie, no 66373/13, §§ 21-24, 26 février 2015, Mamazhonov c. Russie, no 17239/13, §§ 42-47, 23 octobre 2014, Mamadaliyev c. Russie, no 5614/13, §§ 29-33, 24 juillet 2014, Kadirzhanov et Mamashev c. Russie, nos 42351/13 et 47823/13, §§ 53, 60 et 63, 17 juillet 2014, Ermakov c. Russie, no 43165/10, §§ 30-42, 7 novembre 2013, Savriddin Dzhurayev, précité, §§ 27-29, Makhmudzhan Ergashev c. Russie, no 49747/11, §§ 20-23 et 28-29, 16 octobre 2012, et Abdulkhakov c. Russie, no 14743/11, §§ 33-39, 2 octobre 2012).
• EGMR - 49975/15 (anhängig)

  RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  For relevant reports and items of information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46, 16 October 2012), and Mamadaliyev v. Russia (no. 5614/13, §§ 37-42, 24 July 2014).

• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

  T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA

  The Court has repeatedly held that the removal of ethnic Uzbeks from Russia to Kyrgyzstan would violate Article 3 (see, for example, U.N. v. Russia, no. 14348/15, 26 July 2016; R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, 22 October 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, 15 October 2015; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, 24 July 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  For relevant reports and items of information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (cited above, §§ 30-46) and Mamadaliyev v. Russia (no. 5614/13, §§ 37-42, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  TURGUNOV v. RUSSIA

  In a number of previous cases concerning extradition to Kyrgyzstan it found that the situation in the south of the country was characterised by torture and other ill-treatment of ethnic Uzbeks by law-enforcement officers (see Khamrakulov v. Russia, cited above, § 65; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, § 60, 24 July 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, § 91, 17 July 2014; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, cited above, § 61; and Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, cited above, §§ 71-73).
• EGMR, 26.07.2016 - 14348/15

  U.N. v. RUSSIA

  In those cases it consistently held that, given the attested widespread and routine use of torture and other ill-treatment by law-enforcement agencies in the southern part of Kyrgyzstan in respect of members of the Uzbek community, the impunity of law-enforcement officers, and the absence of sufficient safeguards for the applicants in the requesting country, there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would face a real risk of exposure to treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Kyrgyzstan (see Khamrakulov, cited above, § 65; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, § 60, 24 July 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev, cited above, § 91; Gayratbek Saliyev, cited above, § 61; and Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, §§ 71-73, 16 October 2012).