Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZOKHIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Prompt information) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZOKHIDOV v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Prompt ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Zokhidov v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 07.07.2009 - 25336/04

  GRORI v. ALBANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  It is for the respondent Government to demonstrate to the Court that the interim measure was complied with or, in an exceptional case, that there was an objective impediment which prevented compliance and that the Government took all reasonable steps to remove the impediment and to keep the Court informed about the situation (see Grori v. Albania, no. 25336/04, § 184, 7 July 2009, and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom, no. 61498/08, § 161, ECHR 2010 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 50278/99

  AOULMI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  Consequently, the interim measure is sought by the applicant, and granted by the Court, in order to facilitate the "effective exercise" of the right of individual petition under Article 34 of the Convention in the sense of preserving the subject matter of the application when that is judged to be at risk of irreparable damage through the acts or omissions of the respondent State (see Mamatkulov and Askarov, cited above, § 108; Shamayev and Others, cited above, § 473; and Aoulmi v. France, no. 50278/99, § 103, ECHR 2006-I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 62400/10

  SOLIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  In this connection, the Court reiterates that where the decision depriving a person of liberty is one taken by an administrative body, Article 5 § 4 obliges the Contracting States to make available to the person detained a right of recourse to a court (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 76, Series A no. 12, and, more recently, in the context of detention pending extradition, Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, § 50, 5 June 2012).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80

  ABDULAZIZ, CABALES AND BALKANDALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94), and that the right to political asylum is not explicitly protected by either the Convention or its Protocols (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, ECHR 2007 I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  VILVARAJAH ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  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 expulsion (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, § 107, Series A no. 215).
• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 41015/04

  KABOULOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  Furthermore, when a person is arrested with a view to extradition, the information given may be even less complete (see Kaboulov v. Ukraine, no. 41015/04, § 144, 19 November 2009).
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  These standards imply that the ill-treatment the applicant alleges he will face if returned must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The assessment of this is relative, depending on all the circumstances of the case (see Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 60, ECHR 2001-II).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 28358/95

  BARANOWSKI v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that from 14 July to 15 September 2010 the applicant was kept in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing his situation, which fact is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 59, 15 January 2009, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  The Court reiterates at the outset that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 67, Series A no. 94), and that the right to political asylum is not explicitly protected by either the Convention or its Protocols (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 135, ECHR 2007 I (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 40258/03

  YUDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 67286/10

  In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that from 14 July to 15 September 2010 the applicant was kept in detention without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing his situation, which fact is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, mutatis mutandis, Yudayev v. Russia, no. 40258/03, § 59, 15 January 2009, and Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 56, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Rien au dossier ne permet de conclure que l'évaluation par les juridictions nationales des éléments présentés quant au risque de mauvais traitements au Tadjikistan ait été superficielle ou erronée (voir, a contrario, Iskandarov, précité, § 33, et Zokhidov c. Russie, no 67286/10, §§ 130-31, 5 février 2013).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  Ainsi, une fois qu'un individu susceptible d'être expulsé ou extradé vers ce pays a pu démontrer son appartenance à ce groupe, il n'est pas tenu d'établir l'existence d'autres caractéristiques particulières qui le distingueraient personnellement pour démontrer qu'il était et continue d'être personnellement en danger (Saadi, précité, § 132, CEDH 2008, Zokhidov c. Russie, no 67286/10, § 138, 5 février 2013).