Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABIDOV AGAINST RUSSIA AND 19 OTHER CASES

  Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABIDOV CONTRE LA RUSSIE ET 19 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10
• EGMR, 14.03.2019 - 52805/10, 35692/11, 30225/11, 38124/07, 66317/09, 42443/02, 19316/09, 69235/11, 13476/04, 19732/04, 70440/10, 60045/10, 77658/11, 656/06, 27843/11, 44882/07, 56662/09, 55822/10, 16074/07, 41970/11

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ELMURATOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5-1 Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  As to the Government's claim that the applicant was not a victim of the alleged violation, the Court notes the exceptional nature of the application of the "victim" notion in Article 3 cases involving extradition, namely, "by reason of foreseeable consequences" (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 90 Series A no. 161).

  Nonetheless, there is no question of adjudicating on or establishing the responsibility of the receiving 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).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  The "effectiveness" of a "remedy" within the meaning of Article 13 does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  It follows that the applicant has at his disposal a remedy with automatic suspensive effect (see Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-...).

 
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  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 Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports 1996-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000-IX; and Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, § 47, ECHR 2008-...).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  At the same time, the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of an unsettled situation in the receiving country does not in itself give rise to a breach of Article 3 (see Vilvarajah and Others, cited above, § 111, and Katani and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 67679/01, 31 May 2001).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  As regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court considers that it can attach 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, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  YULDASHEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  However, the applicants in those cases had been charged with political crimes (see Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 122, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 94, 11 December 2008; and Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 84, 8 July 2010) and thus were members of a group systematically exposed to a practice of ill-treatment (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 132, ECHR 2008-...) as confirmed by reports by reliable independent international sources.
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  Since the nature of the Contracting States" responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 66317/09

  Since the nature of the Contracting States" responsibility under Article 3 in cases of this kind lies in the act of exposing an individual to the risk of ill-treatment, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to those facts which were known or ought to have been known to the Contracting State at the time of the extradition (see Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, §§ 75-76, Series A no. 201, and Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215).