Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOZHAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Belarus) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-f - Extradition) No violation of ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (19)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  With reference to extradition or deportation, the Court reiterates that in cases where an applicant provides reasoned grounds which cast doubt on the accuracy of the information relied on by the respondent Government, the Court must be satisfied that the assessment made by the authorities of the Contracting State is adequate and sufficiently supported by domestic materials, as well as by materials originating from other reliable sources (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  It finds that the same consideration must apply, a fortiori, in respect of agencies of the United Nations, particularly given their direct access to the authorities of the country of destination as well as their ability to carry out on-site inspections and assessments in a manner which States and non-governmental organisations may not be able to do (see NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 121, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Briten dürfen Hassprediger an USA ausliefern

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, § 105, 6 July 2010).

• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  Before dealing with the substance of the applicant's complaint, the Court reiterates that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because a Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  It does not appear that, under Russian law, a detainee could continue to be held in detention once an authorised detention period had expired, or that any exceptions to that rule were permitted or provided for, no matter how short the duration of the detention (see Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 149, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  As to the applicant's subsequent detention until 2 November 2010, the Court observes, and it has not been argued otherwise, that it was regularly ordered by a competent court, in compliance with the maximum periods set in Article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as in compliance with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Russia (see paragraph 48 above, and, for comparison, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 73-75, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 43707/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  The applicant did not allege that his previous experience of criminal prosecution in Belarus had involved any circumstances that substantiated a serious risk of ill-treatment or unfair trial in the future (see, by contrast, Koktysh v. Ukraine, no. 43707/07, § 64, 10 December 2009, in which case the allegation of ill-treatment was assessed in the light of the major issue relating to the death penalty and the alleged prior ill-treatment).
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  It is true that the Court previously considered that extradition or deportation to a specific country on charges relating to politically and/or religiously motivated criminal offences could, depending on the context, raise serious issues under Article 3 of the Convention (see Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 94, 11 December 2008, concerning the extradition to Uzbekistan on the criminal charges relating to his membership of a proscribed religious organisation).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  At the same time, no such special context was present when an applicant was charged with an ordinary criminal offence (see, for comparison, Elmuratov v. Russia, no. 66317/09, § 84, 3 March 2011, and Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 72, 10 June 2010, also concerning the extradition to Uzbekistan).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 3990/06

  KAMYSHEV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  By way of comparison, it is noted that the applicant in the present case was charged with an ordinary criminal offence without any particular, for instance political, context (see, for comparison, Kamyshev v. Ukraine, no. 3990/06, § 44, 20 May 2010; and Galeyev v. Russia, no. 19316/09, § 55, 3 June 2010, in which the Court considered that the applicants" extradition to Belarus on charges of abuse of power by a public official and extortion, respectively, would not entail a violation of Article 3 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 03.06.2010 - 19316/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
• RG, 13.12.1924 - I 17/24

  Eigentumsübergang an Wertpapieren. Zur Frage des Selbsthilfe- oder …
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02

  SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  The Court regards the relevant information submitted by applicants to the immigration authorities as an integral part justifying their claims of a fear of treatment in breach of Article 3 (see Y. v. Russia, no. 20113/07, §§ 87-88, 4 December 2008; Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, §§ 132-13, 5 June 2012; and Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, §§ 85-87, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 09.07.2019 - 3598/10

  KISLOV v. RUSSIA

  For other relevant material, see various references and citations in the Court's judgments in the cases of Kozhayev v. Russia (no. 60045/10, §§ 55-59, 5 June 2012), and Y.P. and L.P. v. France (no. 32476/06, §§ 38-43, 2 September 2010).

  Having examined the available material and the parties' submissions, the Court considers that it has not been substantiated that the human-rights situation in Belarus is such as to call for a total ban on extradition to that country, for instance on account of a risk that detainees will be ill-treated (see K. v. Russia, no. 69235/11, §§ 66 and 72, 23 May 2013; see also, in relation to periods between 2004 and 2012, Bordovskiy v. Russia (dec.), no. 49491/99, 11 May 2004; Puzan v. Ukraine, no. 51243/08, § 34, 18 February 2010; Kamyshev v. Ukraine, no. 3990/06, § 44, 20 May 2010; Galeyev, cited above, § 55; and Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, § 90, 5 June 2012).

• EGMR, 23.05.2013 - 69235/11

  K. v. RUSSIA

  For relevant reports reviewing the situation in Belarus, see Puzan v. Ukraine (no. 51243/08, §§ 20-24, 18 February 2010) and Kozhayev v. Russia (no. 60045/10, §§ 55-60, 5 June 2012).

  In sum, the Court is not ready to give any particular weight to those statements in the present case (see Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, § 84, 5 June 2012).

• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  [ENG]

  In sum, it is not ready to give any particular weight to these statements in the present case (see Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, § 84, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 52805/10

  ABIDOV AGAINST RUSSIA AND 19 OTHER CASES

  60045/10.
• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  La déclaration du Gouvernement selon laquelle les autorités tadjikes n'ont jamais manqué à se conformer à leurs assurances (voir le paragraphe 77 ci-dessus) ne convainc pas la Cour (voir Kozhayev c. Russie, no 60045/10, § 84, 5 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 28.11.2013 - 20403/05

  [ENG]

  In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the period complained of - from 18 to 19 August 2004 - was not covered by a lawful detention order (see, for similar reasoning, Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, § 106, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  BUDREVICH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  The relevant international material concerning the human rights situation in Belarus are set out in the Court's judgments in Y.P. and L.P. v. France, no. 32476/06, §§ 37-45, 2 September 2010, and Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, §§ 55-60, 5 June 2012.
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 31478/17

  PROKOPYEV v. RUSSIA

  The starting point for the calculation is the date of the relevant appeal decision or, if the detention was not covered by any judicial order, the date on which the alleged continuous violation of the right to liberty ceased to exist (see Strelets v. Russia, no. 28018/05, § 67, 6 November 2012; Kozhayev v. Russia, no. 60045/10, § 102, 5 June 2012; Bakhmutskiy v. Russia, no. 36932/02, § 107, 25 June 2009; Belov v. Russia, no. 22053/02, § 73, 3 July 2008; and Ignatov v. Russia, no. 27193/02, § 71, 24 May 2007).