Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OSHLAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kazakhstan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law Article 5-1-f - Extradition) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Oshlakov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 38124/07

  DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should therefore review whether this law has been complied with (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX, and Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 38124/07, § 67, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4 (see Megyeri v. Germany, 12 May 1992, § 22, Series A no. 237-A).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  Although it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, under Article 5 § 1 failure to comply with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention and the Court can and should therefore review whether this law has been complied with (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX, and Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 38124/07, § 67, 17 December 2009).

 
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  However, where an automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been instituted, the decisions on the lawfulness of detention must follow at "reasonable intervals" (see, among others, Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, §§ 75 and 77, Series A no. 244, and Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, no. 59512/00, § 42, 21 June 2005).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  In order to determine whether there is a risk of ill-treatment, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of extraditing the applicant to the requesting country, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 108 in fine, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  Where the sources available to the Court describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I), except in the most extreme cases where the general situation of violence in the country of destination is of such intensity as to create a real risk that any removal to that country would necessarily violate Article 3 (see N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, §§ 115-16, 17 July 2008; Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 217, 28 June 2011; and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach a certain importance to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection organisations such as Amnesty International, or governmental sources (see, for example, Chahal, cited above, §§ 99-100; Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, ECHR 2005-VI; and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicating on or establishing the responsibility of the requesting country, whether under general international law, under the Convention, or otherwise (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 91, Series A no. 161, and El Masri v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" [GC], no. 39630/09, § 212, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 15.03.2012 - 39692/09

  AUSTIN ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  Sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds on which persons may be deprived of their liberty and no deprivation of liberty will be compatible with Article 5 § 1 unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, amongst many other authorities, Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, § 60, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.04.2014 - 56662/09

  Where the sources available to the Court describe a general situation, an applicant's specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence (see Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 73, ECHR 2005-I), except in the most extreme cases where the general situation of violence in the country of destination is of such intensity as to create a real risk that any removal to that country would necessarily violate Article 3 (see N.A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, §§ 115-16, 17 July 2008; Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 217, 28 June 2011; and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 153, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA

  Whether such requests were classed as "objections" to enforcement (Article 598 § 1 (c) of the CCP) or requests aimed at finding that the maximum detention time-limits had expired, what matters most to the Court is that they led to a review of the lawfulness of the applicants' detention which appears to have been fully in line with the limited scope for judicial review in extradition proceedings when the extradition request has already been granted (compare Abdulkhakov, cited above, §§ 214 et seq., and Oshlakov v. Russia, no. 56662/09, §§ 128-129, 3 April 2014).
• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 20183/21

  LAZAR v. ROMANIA

  Whether such requests were classed as "objections" to enforcement (Article 598 § 1 (c) of the CCP) or as requests aimed at finding that the maximum detention time-limits had expired, what matters most to the Court is that they led to a review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention which appears to have been fully in line with the limited scope for judicial review in extradition proceedings when the extradition request has already been granted (compare Abdulkhakov, cited above, §§ 214 et seq., and Oshlakov v. Russia, no. 56662/09, §§ 128-29, 3 April 2014).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 43999/16
  Austria has not requested diplomatic assurances from Kosovo in his case (compare, mutatis mutandis, Oshlakov v. Russia, no. 56662/09, § 90, 3 April 2014).