Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAMRAKULOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria (see Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 3, 100 for the proceedings before the Court, plus any tax which may be chargeable to the applicant on that amount.
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 116, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 19.02.2013 - 39786/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  This is not reconcilable with the requirement of "speediness", as set out in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Yefimova v. Russia, no. 39786/09, § 292, 19 February 2013).

• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 31890/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  In addition, their potential involvement was not supported by any practical mechanism setting out, for instance, a procedure by which the applicant could lodge complaints with them or for their unfettered access to detention facilities (see, mutatis mutandis, Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 31890/11, §§ 132-33, 3 October 2013).
• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 664/05

  MERIE v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  Although the number of days taken by the relevant proceedings is obviously an important element, it is not necessarily in itself decisive for the question of whether a decision has been given with the requisite speed (see Merie v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 664/05, 20 September 2007).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that the current overall human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan remains highly problematic (see, mutatis mutandis, Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, § 51, 1 April 2010).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  For a summary of relevant international and domestic law and practice see Abdulkhakov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, §§ 71-98, 2 October 2012.
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 30225/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  The Court will therefore assess whether the applicant faces a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his extradition to Kyrgyzstan - the material date for the assessment of that risk being that of the Court's consideration of the case - taking into account the assessment made by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Bakoyev v. Russia, no. 30225/11, § 113, 5 February 2013).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  The Court will examine the merits of this part of the applicant's complaint under Article 3 in the light of the applicable general principles set out in, among other cases, Umirov v. Russia (no. 17455/11, §§ 92-100, 18 September 2012, with further references).
• EGMR, 16.10.2012 - 49747/11

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 68894/13

  For a number of relevant reports and items of information, see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia (no. 49747/11, §§ 30-46, 16 October 2012).
• EGMR, 17.04.2014 - 39093/13

  GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 52722/15

  Asyl: Russland darf Syrer nicht abschieben

  Therefore, the Court does not rule out that this form of temporary protection could be an "effective" solution in the applicant's situation, given that his grievance under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention was based on the facts arising from the ongoing and particularly grave situation of hostilities in his home country (see, by way of comparison, Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, §§ 46-61, 16 April 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, §§ 44 and 49, 15 October 2015, and Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, §§ 33 and 36, 22 October 2015).
• EGMR, 19.11.2019 - 28492/15

  T.K. AND S.R. v. RUSSIA

  This information addresses the concerns about the effectiveness of that arrangement expressed by the Court in a number of previous judgments (see, for example, Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos. 42351/13 and 47823/13, §§ 96-97, 17 July 2014, and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 69, 16 April 2015).

  The Court has repeatedly held that the removal of ethnic Uzbeks from Russia to Kyrgyzstan would violate Article 3 (see, for example, U.N. v. Russia, no. 14348/15, 26 July 2016; R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, 22 October 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, 15 October 2015; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, 24 July 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 29.04.2022 - 28492/15

  Kirgisistan: nicht mit beachtlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit drohende …

  Referring to the case of Khamrakulov v. Russia (no. 68894/13, § 69, 16 April 2015), they alleged that the monitoring visits by the Russian diplomatic staff were at the discretion of the Kyrgyz authorities and that no proper procedural safeguards existed to ensure the effectiveness of such visits.

  118. The Court notes that between 2012 and 2016 it considered nine cases concerning extraditions of ethnic Uzbeks from Russia to Kyrgyzstan (see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012; Gayratbek Saliyev v. Russia, no. 39093/13, 17 April 2014; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev v. Russia, no. 42351/13, 17 July 2014; Mamadaliyev v. Russia, no. 5614/13, 24 July 2014; Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015; Nabid Abdullayev v. Russia, no. 8474/14, 15 October 2015; Turgunov v. Russia, no. 15590/14, 22 October 2015; Tadzhibayev v. Russia, no. 17724/14, 1 December 2015; and R. v. Russia, no. 11916/15, 26 January 2016).

• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 15636/16

  N.A. AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

  However, if an applicant has not yet been removed when the Court examines the case, the relevant time for assessing the existence of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 will be that of the proceedings before the Court (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 133, ECHR 2008; M.A. v. Switzerland, no. 52589/13, § 54, 18 November 2014; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 64, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 32275/15

  M.A.-M. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND

  However, if an applicant has not yet been removed when the Court examines the case, the relevant time for assessing the existence of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 will be that of the proceedings before the Court (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 133, ECHR 2008; M.A. v. Switzerland, no. 52589/13, § 54, 18 November 2014; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 64, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR - 49975/15 (anhängig)

  RAKHMANOV v. RUSSIA

  Before deciding on his extradition, did the authorities consider the applicant's claim that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment if returned to Kyrgyzstan? Would the applicant face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the extradition order was enforced (see Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, 16 April 2015)?.
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 20159/16

  F.M. AND OTHERS v. DENMARK

  However, if an applicant has not yet been removed when the Court examines the case, the relevant time for assessing the existence of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 will be that of the proceedings before the Court (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 133, ECHR 2008; M.A. v. Switzerland, no. 52589/13, § 54, 18 November 2014; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 64, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 5868/13

  S.M.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS

  However, if an applicant has not yet been removed when the Court examines the case, the relevant time for assessing the existence of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 will be that of the proceedings before the Court (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 133, ECHR 2008; M.A. v. Switzerland, no. 52589/13, § 54, 18 November 2014; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 64, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15
  In particular, various reports had been consistently in agreement when describing biased attitudes based on ethnicity in investigations, prosecutions, convictions and sanctions imposed on ethnic Uzbeks charged and convicted in relation to the events in Jalal-Abad Region, as well as a lack of full and effective investigations into the numerous allegations of torture and ill-treatment imputable to Kyrgyz law-enforcement agencies, arbitrary detention and excessive use of force against Uzbeks allegedly involved in the events of June 2010 (see Gayratbek Saliyev, cited above, § 61; Kadirzhanov and Mamashev, cited above, § 91; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 65, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 27.10.2016 - 32275/15

  Irak: Die Überstellung von Familien mit Neugeborenen nach Italien geschieht …

  However, if an applicant has not yet been removed when the Court examines the case, the relevant time for assessing the existence of the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 will be that of the proceedings before the Court (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 133, ECHR 2008; M.A. v. Switzerland, no. 52589/13, § 54, 18 November 2014; and Khamrakulov v. Russia, no. 68894/13, § 64, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.06.2016 - 7211/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 15590/14

  TURGUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 10827/12

  A AND B v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 46970/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR - 53980/15 (anhängig)

  H.R. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.07.2016 - 14348/15

  U.N. v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 64047/10

  M.M.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 13630/16

  M.R. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND