Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BUDREVICH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 13+3 MRK
  Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture Expulsion) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Budrevich v. the Czech Republic

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BUDREVICH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10
• EGMR, 16.09.2015 - 65303/10

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  The Court reiterates that in cases concerning threatened expulsion or extradition it does not examine the question whether a violation has already happened but whether it would happen were the removal executed (see the operative parts of the judgments in, for example, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, and, more recently, Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  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 Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 59, 11 October 2007, with further references, and Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 8319/07

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  The Court reiterates that in cases concerning threatened expulsion or extradition it does not examine the question whether a violation has already happened but whether it would happen were the removal executed (see the operative parts of the judgments in, for example, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, and, more recently, Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, 28 June 2011).

• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 60045/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  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, 14.06.2011 - 42409/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  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 Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 59, 11 October 2007, with further references, and Dobrov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 42409/09, 14 June 2011).
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 24017/03

  A. N. G. gegen Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 65303/10

  The applicant will thus have access to proceedings in which his claim of a risk of ill-treatment in Belarus will again be assessed at the end of his subsidiary protection (see Ghosh v. Germany (dec.), no. 24017/03, 5 June 2007, where the Court considered it important that before a possible repeated attempt to execute his extradition the applicant would have access to a procedure in which his claim of possible ill-treatment in the target country would be newly assessed).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen