Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHALIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition Expulsion) (Substantive aspect) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Khalikov v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  In so far as the applicant claimed that the real purpose of the expulsion proceedings was to keep him in custody pending the outcome of the extradition proceedings, the Court reiterates that detention may be unlawful if its stated purpose differs from the real one (see Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 142, 31 May 2011; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42, ECHR 2002-I: and Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, § 60).
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, for a similar approach, Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, § 144, 21 October 2010; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 145, 18 April 2013; and, most recently, Akram Karimov, cited above, § 137).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  The Court will consider firstly whether there existed a possibility of effective supervision of the applicant's detention and secondly whether the applicant's detention was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) (see Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, § 38, 17 July 2014, and Azimov, cited above, § 146 et seq.).

• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the ground of detention relied on by the Government; the place and conditions of detention must be appropriate; and the length of the detention must not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Azimov, cited above, § 161, and Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 150, 3 July 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  However, it does not need to determine whether the same is true in the instant case because even where the purpose of detention is legitimate, its length should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (see Azimov, cited above, § 166, and Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, § 162, 5 June 2012).
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  Having regard to its findings above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, for a similar approach, Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, § 144, 21 October 2010; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 145, 18 April 2013; and, most recently, Akram Karimov, cited above, § 137).
• EGMR, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

  RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  In such circumstances the Court considers that the requirement under Article 5 § 4 was neither incorporated in the initial detention order of 18 October 2013 nor fulfilled by the appeal court (see Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, § 147).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  It has also been the Court's established position that the diplomatic assurances are likewise incapable, on their own, to prevent the risk of ill-treatment from materialising and that the national authorities need to treat with caution the assurances against torture given by a State where torture is endemic or persistent (see Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, § 85, 8 July 2010, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  In the recent cases against the Russian Federation examined under Article 3 concerning the extradition of applicants to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, the Court has identified the critical elements to be subjected to searching scrutiny (see, among many other authorities, Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Kasymakhunov v. Russia, no. 29604/12, 14 November 2013; Abdulkhakov v. Russia, cited above; and Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010).
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 66373/13

  In this connection the Court reiterates that, in view of the absolute nature of Article 3, it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for the expulsion (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 91, 22 September 2009).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 62892/12

  AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EuGH - 86/81 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Halyvourgia / Kommission
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 22636/13

  NIZAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

  Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

  Consequently, in reviewing such complaints the Court has focused primarily on these proceedings as constituting the basis for the complaint brought under Article 3. It has found that while ruling on the question of the possibility of removal, the scope of review by the domestic authorities, including the courts, should include relevant arguments of ill-treatment raised by the applicants, in view of the absolute nature of Article 3 (see Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 44, 26 June 2014, and Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, § 37, 6 July 2015).
• EGMR, 02.12.2021 - 42787/11

  YEVDOKIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its well-established case-law (see Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, §§ 69-76, 26 February 2015, concerning the authorities' failure to indicate the time-limit in respect of the detention pending expulsion).

  lack of periodic review of detention (Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, §§ 61-66, 26 February 2015).

• 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, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  Partant, elle considère que les assurances en question ne sont pas suffisantes pour garantir que le requérant ne serait pas soumis à des mauvais traitements en cas de renvoi vers l'Ouzbékistan (Khalikov c. Russie, no 66373/13, § 53, 26 février 2015, Zokhidov, précité, § 141).
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15
  It observes, however, that it has found in a number of cases against Russia concerning detention of foreign nationals pending their administrative removal that such removal amounted to a form of "deportation" in terms of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention, and that consequently that provision was applicable (see Azimov, cited above, § 160; Kim, cited above, § 48; Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 58, 26 June 2014; Rakhimov, cited above, § 124; and Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, § 69, 26 February 2015).
• EGMR, 15.12.2022 - 59387/18

  RASULOV v. RUSSIA

  In the judgments adopted in the cases of Azimov v. Russia (no. 67474/11, §§ 150-55, 18 April 2013), Kim v. Russia (no. 44260/13, §§ 41-45, 17 July 2014), Khalikov v. Russia (no. 66373/13, §§ 61-66, 26 February 2015) and, more recently, M.D. and Others v. Russia (nos. 71321/17 and 8 others, §§ 136-40, 14 September 2021), in respect of issues similar to those in the present case, the Court held that the applicants, who were detained for the purpose of their expulsion, had had no access to periodic judicial review of their detention, in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 53494/09

  ORUDZHOV v. RUSSIA

  Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, § 106, 26 January 2016; Khalikov v. Russia, no. 66373/13, § 73, 26 February 2015; Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, § 191, 28 May 2014; Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 171, 18 April 2013, and Ananyev and Others, cited above, § 80).