Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RYABIKIN v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Turkmenistan) Violation of Art. 5-1-f Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 10.04.2007 - 8320/04
• EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2007 - 1948/04

  Somalia, Abschiebungshindernis, zielstaatsbezogene Abschiebungshindernisse, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  In cases where an applicant alleges that he or she is a member of a group systematically exposed to a practice of ill-treatment, the Court considers that the protection of Article 3 of the Convention enters into play when the applicant establishes, where necessary on the basis of the sources mentioned in the previous paragraph, that there are serious reasons to believe in the existence of the practice in question and his or her membership of the group concerned (see, mutatis mutandis, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, §§ 138-149, ECHR 2007-... (extracts), and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 132, 28 February 2008).
• EGMR, 25.11.1999 - 23118/93

  NILSEN AND JOHNSEN v. NORWAY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  The Court recalls that in order for costs and expenses to be included in an award under Article 41, it must be established that they were actually and necessarily incurred in order to prevent or obtain redress for the matter found to constitute a violation of the Convention and were reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Nielsen and Johnson v. Norway [GC], no. 23118/93, § 43, ECHR 1999-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  If the proceedings are not executed with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under that provision (see Chahal, cited above, § 113; Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 19, § 48; and also Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 55, § 36).

• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 9808/02

  STOICHKOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.10.2007 - 656/06

  NASRULLOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  In so far as the question concerns the quality of national law governing detention pending extradition, the Court recalls that it has already faced a similar issue in the case of Nasrulloyev v. Russia (no. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 42987/98

  VACHEV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  The existence of the remedy required by Article 5 § 4 must be sufficiently certain, not only in theory but also in practice, failing which it will lack the accessibility and effectiveness required for the purposes of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, § 66 in fine, 24 March 2005, and Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, § 71, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 11613/85

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  If the proceedings are not executed with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under that provision (see Chahal, cited above, § 113; Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 19, § 48; and also Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 55, § 36).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; and H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 758, § 37).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 35865/03

  Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  To that end, as regards the general situation in a particular country, the Court has often attached importance to the information contained in recent reports from independent international human-rights-protection associations such as Amnesty International, or governmental sources, including the US State Department (see, for example, Chahal, cited above, §§ 99-100; Müslim v. Turkey, no. 53566/99, § 67, 26 April 2005; Said v. the Netherlands, no. 2345/02, § 54, 5 July 2005; and Al-Moayad v. Germany (dec.), no. 35865/03, §§ 65-66, 20 February 2007).
• EGMR, 30.10.1991 - 13163/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2008 - 8320/04

  In so far as any liability under the Convention is or may be incurred, it is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting State by reason of its having taken action which has as a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, §§ 89-91; Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; and H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 758, § 37).
• EGMR, 31.05.2001 - 67679/01

  KATANI ET AUTRES contre l'ALLEMAGNE

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA

  Besides, it refers to its findings in the Nasrulloyev case concerning the divergent approaches taken by the Russian authorities on the issue of provisions applicable to detainees awaiting extradition, in particular on the issue whether Article 109 of the CCrP, which lays down the procedure and specific time-limits for reviewing detention, was applicable (see also Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 129, 19 June 2008, and Ismoilov and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 2947/06, 12 December 2006).
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 37289/12

  J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In a series of Russian cases the Court has considered the existence - or absence - of time-limits on detention pending extradition to be relevant to the assessment of the "quality of law" (see, for example, Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, § 171, 18 April 2013; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 139-140, 24 April 2008; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 129, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 121, 11 December 2008; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 73-74, 11 October 2007).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 12106/09

  [ENG]

  Be as it may, the Court reiterates that it has already found the application of the domestic legal rules of criminal procedure concerning detention pending extradition to be inconsistent, mutually exclusive and not circumscribed by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness (see, amongst many other authorities, Nasrulloyev, cited above, § 77; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 140; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 127-130, 19 June 2008; Karimov, cited above, § 115; and Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, § 86, 4 November 2010).

• EGMR, 12.12.2013 - 77658/11

  LATIPOV c. RUSSIE

  Pour apprécier l'existence de ce risque, il faut se référer par priorité aux circonstances dont l'Etat en cause avait ou devait avoir connaissance au moment de l'expulsion (Riabikine c. Russie, no 8320/04, § 111, 19 juin 2008).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 31098/10

  [ENG]

  Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the deportation proceedings, although temporarily suspended pursuant to the request made by the Court, have nevertheless been in progress and are in strict compliance with domestic law (compare S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011; contrast Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 132, 19 June 2008, and Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 134, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 13476/04

  KHUDYAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  The applicant did not question the availability or effectiveness of a remedy for examination of the lawfulness of her detention, contrary to all the previous Russian cases concerning extradition examined by the Court (see Bordovskiy, cited above, §§ 60-68; Garabayev v. Russia, no. 38411/02, §§ 92-98, 7 June 2007, ECHR 2007-... (extracts); Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, §§ 142-52, 24 April 2008; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, §§ 79-90, 11 October 2007; Shchebet, cited above, §§ 71-79; and Ryabikin v Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 134-41, 19 June 2008).
• EGMR, 07.02.2012 - 3727/08

  [ENG]

  Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the deportation proceedings, although temporarily suspended pursuant to the request made by the Court, have nevertheless been in progress since 1 February 2011 and in strict compliance with domestic law (compare S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011; contrast Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 132, 19 June 2008, and Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, no. 30471/08, § 134, ECHR 2009-...).
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 58923/14

  KHOLMURODOV c. RUSSIE

  Pour apprécier l'existence de ce risque, il faut se référer par priorité aux circonstances dont l'État en cause avait ou devait avoir connaissance au moment de l'extradition ou d'expulsion (Vilvarajah, précité, § 107, Riabikine c. Russie, no 8320/04, § 111, 19 juin 2008).
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 54219/08

  [ENG]

  In so far as the question concerns the quality of national law governing detention pending extradition, the Court points out that it has already faced similar issues in the cases of Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, §§ 138-140, and Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, §§ 127-130, 19 June 2008, where the Court found it established that the domestic provisions concerning detention pending extradition fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention.
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 44882/07

  [ENG]

  In a number of its judgments, the Court has already found that the provisions of the Russian law governing the detention of persons pending extradition were neither precise nor foreseeable in their application and fell short of the "quality of law" standard required under the Convention (see, for example, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007; Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 140, 24 April 2008; Ryabikin v. Russia, no. 8320/04, § 130, 19 June 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 121, 11 December 2008; Khudyakova v. Russia, no. 13476/04, § 73, 8 January 2009; Konontsev v. Russia, no. 19732/04, § 26, 29 July 2010; and Abdulkhakov, cited above, § 181).
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 1248/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 13.03.2012 - 39549/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 19732/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.06.2010 - 19293/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 26876/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 04.11.2010 - 42502/06

  MUMINOV v. RUSSIA