Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,7072
EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,7072)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18.04.2013 - 67474/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,7072)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 18. April 2013 - 67474/11 (https://dejure.org/2013,7072)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,7072) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
    Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Tajikistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and ...

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (54)Zitiert selbst (13)

  • EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

    Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The scope and depth of the courts" review of extradition requests by foreign authorities may be somewhat limited (see Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, § 93, 20 February 2007).

    The Court reiterates that in assessing the general situation in a particular country it attached certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection bodies and organisations or governmental sources (see, for example, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 99-100, Reports 1996-V; 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, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

    FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, and to the fact that no violation was found in respect of part of the application, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 6, 000 covering costs under all heads (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
  • EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

    Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The Court reiterates that a detention may be unlawful if its outer purpose differs from the real one (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, § 60; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42, ECHR 2002-I; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 142, 31 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

    Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    Consequently, the Court must examine whether the conclusion reached by the Russian courts in the present case, namely that the applicant did not face any risk of ill-treatment if returned to Tajikistan, was based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence, whether all relevant factors were assessed, and whether inferences made by the domestic courts from the facts of the case were compatible with the letter and spirit of Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's case-law (see Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, § 136, 11 January 2007).
  • EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The Court reiterates that a detention may be unlawful if its outer purpose differs from the real one (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, § 60; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 42, ECHR 2002-I; and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, § 142, 31 May 2011).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000, and Altun v. Turkey, no. 24561/94, § 42, 1 June 2004).
  • EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 53566/99

    MÜSLIM c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The Court reiterates that in assessing the general situation in a particular country it attached certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection bodies and organisations or governmental sources (see, for example, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 99-100, Reports 1996-V; 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, 01.06.2004 - 24561/94

    ALTUN v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000, and Altun v. Turkey, no. 24561/94, § 42, 1 June 2004).
  • EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 2345/02

    SAID v. THE NETHERLANDS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The Court reiterates that in assessing the general situation in a particular country it attached certain weight to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human rights protection bodies and organisations or governmental sources (see, for example, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, §§ 99-100, Reports 1996-V; 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, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 67474/11
    The Court will examine the merits of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 in the light of the applicable general principles, as reiterated in Saadi v. Italy [GC], (no. 37201/06, §§ 124-136, ECHR 2008), and Shakurov v. Russia (no. 55822/10, §§ 118-128, 5 June 2012).
  • EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

    [ENG]

  • EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 40081/14

    Russland verurteilt - Keine Zwangsausweisung nach Syrien

    The Court will consider firstly whether the possibility of effective supervision over the applicants' detention existed and, secondly, whether their detention was compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) (see Kim, cited above, § 38, and Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 146 et seq., 18 April 2013).
  • EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

    Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

    The Court reiterates that, since its Azimov judgment, which concerned a similar complaint (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 153, 18 April 2013), it has found a violation of Article 5 § 4 in a number of cases against Russia on account of the absence of any domestic legal provision which could have allowed an applicant to bring proceedings for judicial review of his or her detention pending expulsion (see L.M. and Others v. Russia, § 141, and Kim, §§ 39-43, both cited above; Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, §§ 148-50, 10 July 2014; and Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, §§ 199-204, 28 May 2014).
  • EGMR, 07.07.2015 - 60125/11

    V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

    Article 3 applies if the applicant has adduced evidence capable of proving that there are "substantial grounds for believing" that, if a measure complained of were to be implemented, the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see M.S.S., cited above, § 365, and Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 112-113, 18 April 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht