Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SIDIKOVY 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) (Conditional) (Tajikistan) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Extradition) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Sidikovy v. Russia

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (46)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  Therefore, the Court will assess this period of detention in its entirety (see, mutatis mutandis, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 132, 19 March 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, § 134, 23 April 2009; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007, in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

  Therefore, the Court will assess this period of detention in its entirety (see, mutatis mutandis, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 132, 19 March 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, § 134, 23 April 2009; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007, in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  Turning to the present case, the Court observes that unlike in some previous Russian cases concerning detention with a view to extradition (see, among many others, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 87-89, 11 October 2007, and Dzhurayev, cited above, § 68), the first applicant's detention was ordered by a Russian court rather than a foreign court or a non-judicial authority.

  The Court observes at the outset that, unlike in a number of previous Russian cases concerning detention with a view to extradition (see, among many others, Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 38124/07, § 68, 17 December 2009), the second applicant's detention was ordered by a Russian court rather than by a foreign court or a non-judicial authority, similarly to the recent case of Shakurov, cited above, §§ 157-61. As to the period under review, the Court points out that from 13 July to 16 November 2011 the second applicant's detention was regularly extended by a competent court, in compliance with the time-limits set in Article 109 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, and in conformity with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Russia (see paragraph 112 above, and, for comparison, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 73-75, 11 October 2007).

• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  Therefore, the Court will assess this period of detention in its entirety (see, mutatis mutandis, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 132, 19 March 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, § 134, 23 April 2009; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007, in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

  Therefore, the Court will assess this period of detention in its entirety (see, mutatis mutandis, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 132, 19 March 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, § 134, 23 April 2009; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007, in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36941/02

  GUBKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  Therefore, the Court will assess this period of detention in its entirety (see, mutatis mutandis, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 132, 19 March 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, § 134, 23 April 2009; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007, in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

  Therefore, the Court will assess this period of detention in its entirety (see, mutatis mutandis, Polonskiy v. Russia, no. 30033/05, § 132, 19 March 2009; Gubkin v. Russia, no. 36941/02, § 134, 23 April 2009; and Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, §§ 34-37, 16 January 2007, in the context of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).

• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 64809/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  The Government also noted that the effectiveness of the remedy was further corroborated by the fact that in the cases of Soliyev v. Russia, no. 62400/10, § 27, 5 June 2012; Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, § 19, 5 June 2012; and Abidov v. Russia, no. 52805/10, §§ 26-27, 12 June 2012, the Russian court had annuled extradition orders issued by the Prosecutor's Office.

  There is no doubt that this court satisfied the requirement of a "court" mentioned in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, § 108, 5 June 2012).

• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  Having regard to its findings in paragraphs 139-42 above, the Court considers that there is no need to examine this complaint separately on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  They pointed out that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred and reasonable as to quantum (relying upon Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 86, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  Although the process of classification into one or the other of these categories sometimes proves to be no easy task in that some borderline cases are a matter of pure opinion, the Court cannot avoid making the selection upon which the applicability or inapplicability of Article 5 depends (see Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, §§ 92 and 93, and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 89, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  Article 5 § 4 guarantees a remedy that must be accessible to the person concerned (see Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 174-177, 17 January 2012, and Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 45, Series A no. 107).
• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 25904/07

  Sri Lanka, Tamilen, Europäischer Menschenrechtsgerichtshof, menschenrechtswidrige …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 73455/11

  It finds that same consideration must apply, a fortiori, in respect of agencies of the United Nations, particularly given their direct access to the authorities of the country of destination and their ability to carry out on-site inspections and assessments in a manner which States and non-governmental organisations may not be able to do (see NA. v. the United Kingdom, no. 25904/07, § 121, 17 July 2008).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
• EGMR, 10.02.1995 - 15175/89

  ALLENET DE RIBEMONT c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 8660/79

  Minelli ./. Schweiz
• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 14810/02
• EGMR, 08.03.2006 - 59532/00
• EKMR, 13.12.1979 - 8278/78

  X. v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 40907/98

  Griechenland, Ausweisung, Abschiebung, Abschiebungshaft, Haftbedingungen, …
• EGMR, 28.04.2005 - 72758/01

  Unschuldsvermutung (Entschädigungsansprüche; konkludente Schuldfeststellung bei …
• EGMR, 22.05.2008 - 65755/01

  ILIYA STEFANOV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 4493/04

  LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 13470/02

  KHUZHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 65559/01

  NESTAK v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 55822/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.11.2003 - 62902/00

  ZOLLMANN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 2708/02

  VLADIMIR SOLOVYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.03.2010 - 30930/02

  SAVENKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EKMR, 08.12.1979 - 8022/77

  X., Y. and Z. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 7772/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 38124/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 3990/06

  KAMYSHEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.04.2008 - 3947/03

  SILIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 56308/00

  TOSHEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 9214/80
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …
• EGMR, 26.04.2007 - 25389/05

  GEBREMEDHIN
• EGMR, 06.03.2001 - 45276/99

  Tansania, CUF, Civic United Front, Oppositionelle, Inhaftierung, Folter, …
• EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 25404/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 52805/10

  ABIDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  [ENG]
• EKMR, 12.04.1996 - 24671/94

  KAIJALAINEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 62400/10

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 7077/06

  FORTALNOV v. RUSSIA

  Similarly, the Court observes that the duration of the "conveying" to the investigator of one of the applicants (Mr Meshchaninov, application no. 2838/14) for thirty-four hours does not appear justified (see, by contrast, Sidikovy v. Russia, no. 73455/11, §§ 219-20, 20 June 2013) and raises doubts as to its true purpose.
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 38898/04

  [ENG]

  The reference to three hours was meant to delimit the time frame rather than the obligation as such (see, mutatis mutandis, Sidikovy v. Russia, no. 73455/11, §§ 92 and 216, 20 June 2013).
• EGMR, 28.05.2014 - 62892/12

  AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that throughout the period in question the extradition proceedings were in progress and complied with domestic law (see Shakurov v. Russia, no. 55822/10, § 170, 5 June 2012, and Sidikovy v. Russia, no. 73455/11, § 165, 20 June 2013).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

  It is noteworthy that in a number of previous cases against Russia, the Court has already accepted that proceedings for the extension of detention pending extradition before a first-instance court amounted to a form of periodic review of a judicial nature (see, for instance, Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 109-10, 5 June 2012; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 176, 3 July 2012; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 153, 16 October 2012; and Sidikovy v. Russia, no. 73455/11, §§ 182-83, 20 June 2013).
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 35237/14

  YERMAKOVICH v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court notes, firstly, that the proceedings for the extension of detention pending extradition can be considered a form of periodic review of a judicial nature (compare Khodzhamberdiyev v. Russia, no. 64809/10, §§ 109-10, 5 June 2012; Rustamov v. Russia, no. 11209/10, § 176, 3 July 2012; Niyazov v. Russia, no. 27843/11, § 153, 16 October 2012; and Sidikovy v. Russia, no. 73455/11, §§ 182-83, 20 June 2013).