Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Substantive aspect) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Eshonkulov v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EuGH - 86/81 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Halyvourgia / Kommission

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  The applicant further submitted that there existed the administrative practice of substituting expulsion for extradition which was based on an unpublished order of the Moscow Region prosecutor, no. 86/81 of 3 July 2009, which provided that in every case of release of a detained individual because his extradition was impossible, it was mandatory to decide on his administrative expulsion from Russia.

  Having regard to further evidence which the applicant's submitted in support of his claim of an administrative practice of substituting expulsion for extradition, such as the unpublished order of the Moscow Region prosecutor, no. 86/81 of 3 July 2009, the existence and content of which the Government did not dispute (see paragraph 28 above), the Court considers it plausible that the new ground for detention (the expulsion decision) was cited primarily to circumvent the requirements of the domestic law which set a maximum time-limit for the extradition detention.

• EGMR, 26.06.2014 - 34742/13

  EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  For the most recent relevant reports on Uzbekistan by the international human rights non-governmental organisations, see Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, §§ 31-34, 26 June 2014.

  The Court has been previously confronted with many cases concerning forced return from Russia to Uzbekistan of the persons accused by the Uzbek authorities of criminal, religious and political activities (see most recently, Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, 26 June 2014; Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, 28 May 2014; Nizamov and Others v. Russia, nos. 22636/13, 24034/13, 24334/13 and 24528/13, 7 May 2014, with further references).

• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  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, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  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, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 145, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 44260/13

  KIM v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  The Court will consider firstly whether there existed a possibility of effective supervision over 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, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  In the case of Zollmann [Zollmann v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 62902/00, ECHR 2003-XII] the Court did not confine itself to the finding that no criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant within the United Kingdom, it went on to examine whether the statements of a State official were linked to any criminal investigations instigated against the applicant abroad.
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 11209/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  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, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  The Court further observes that even where the purpose of the detention was 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, 10.07.2014 - 50552/13

  RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  In such circumstances the Court considers that the requirement under Article 5 § 4 was neither incorporated in the initial detention order of 28 October 2013 nor fulfilled by the appeal court (see Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, § 147).
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 53688/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 68900/13

  It has found, with reference to material from various sources, that the general situation with regard to human rights in Uzbekistan is alarming, that reliable international material has demonstrated the persistence of a serious issue of ill-treatment of detainees, the practice of torture against those in police custody being described as "systematic" and "indiscriminate", and that there is no concrete evidence to demonstrate any fundamental improvement in that area (see Egamberdiyev, Akram Karimov, Kasymakhunov, Ermakov, Umirov, all cited above; see also Garayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 53688/08, § 71, 10 June 2010; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, §§ 93-96, 11 December 2008, and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 121, 24 April 2008).
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 22.09.2009 - 30471/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 17455/11

  UMIROV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.09.2010 - 17185/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 29604/12

  KASYMAKHUNOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 62892/12

  AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.05.2014 - 22636/13

  NIZAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 11916/15
  The Court has already found a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in a number of judgments concerning Russia on account of the absence of any domestic legal provision which could have allowed an applicant to initiate a judicial review of his detention pending expulsion (see Azimov, cited above, § 153; Kim, cited above, §§ 39-43; Rakhimov, cited above, §§ 148-50; Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, §§ 57-60, 15 January 2015; and L.M. and Others v. Russia, nos. 40081/14, 40088/14 and 40127/14, §§ 140-42, 15 October 2015).
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 78386/14

  SAAKYAN v. RUSSIA

  Starting with the Azimov judgment, the Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 4 on account of the absence of any domestic legal provision which could have allowed the applicant to bring proceedings for judicial review of his detention pending expulsion in the light of new factors which emerged subsequent to the decision on his initial placement in custody (see Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, §§ 153-54, 18 April 2013; Ismailov v. Russia, no. 20110/13, §§ 96-102, 17 April 2014; Akram Karimov v. Russia, no. 62892/12, §§ 199-204, 28 May 2014; Egamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 34742/13, § 64, 26 June 2014; Rakhimov v. Russia, no. 50552/13, §§ 148-150, 10 July 2014, and Eshonkulov v. Russia, no. 68900/13, § 59, 15 January 2015).