Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to the United States) (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HARKINS AND EDWARDS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of America);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07, 32650/07
• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

Wird zitiert von ... (14)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 12.02.2008 - 21906/04

  KAFKARIS c. CHYPRE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  The Secretary of State refused the first applicant's representations on 9 March 2010, relying in particular on this Court's judgment in Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, 12 February 2008 and the Wellington judgment, cited above.

  However, despite these different views, none of the Law Lords found that the sentence likely to be imposed on Mr Wellington would be irreducible; having regard to the commutation powers of the Governor of Missouri, it would be just as reducible as the sentence at issue in Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008-.

• EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44190/98

  NIVETTE contre la FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  Even in extradition cases, such as where there has been an Article 3 complaint concerning the risk of life imprisonment without parole, the Court has focused on whether that risk was a real one, or whether it was alleviated by diplomatic and prosecutorial assurances given by the requesting State (see Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, §§ 43 and 44, 10 August 2006; Youb Saoudi v. Spain (dec.), no. 22871/06, 18 September 2006; Salem v. Portugal (dec.), no. 26844/04, 9 May 2006; and Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  - that the measure may have been calculated to break the applicant's resistance or will (ibid, § 167; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 446, ECHR 2004-VII);.

 
• EGMR, 20.01.2016 - 25196/94

  IWÁNCZUK CONTRE LA POLOGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  - the absence of any specific justification for the measure imposed (Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, §§ 61-62, ECHR 2003-II; Iwanczuk v. Poland, no. 25196/94, § 58, 15 November 2001);.
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  It is correct that the Court has always distinguished between torture on the one hand and inhuman or degrading punishment on the other (see, for instance, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 167, Series A no. 25; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 95-106, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 24668/03

  OLAECHEA CAHUAS v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  Even in extradition cases, such as where there has been an Article 3 complaint concerning the risk of life imprisonment without parole, the Court has focused on whether that risk was a real one, or whether it was alleviated by diplomatic and prosecutorial assurances given by the requesting State (see Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, §§ 43 and 44, 10 August 2006; Youb Saoudi v. Spain (dec.), no. 22871/06, 18 September 2006; Salem v. Portugal (dec.), no. 26844/04, 9 May 2006; and Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 26844/04

  SALEM c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  Even in extradition cases, such as where there has been an Article 3 complaint concerning the risk of life imprisonment without parole, the Court has focused on whether that risk was a real one, or whether it was alleviated by diplomatic and prosecutorial assurances given by the requesting State (see Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, §§ 43 and 44, 10 August 2006; Youb Saoudi v. Spain (dec.), no. 22871/06, 18 September 2006; Salem v. Portugal (dec.), no. 26844/04, 9 May 2006; and Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 18.09.2006 - 22871/06

  SAOUDI c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  Even in extradition cases, such as where there has been an Article 3 complaint concerning the risk of life imprisonment without parole, the Court has focused on whether that risk was a real one, or whether it was alleviated by diplomatic and prosecutorial assurances given by the requesting State (see Olaechea Cahuas v. Spain, no. 24668/03, §§ 43 and 44, 10 August 2006; Youb Saoudi v. Spain (dec.), no. 22871/06, 18 September 2006; Salem v. Portugal (dec.), no. 26844/04, 9 May 2006; and Nivette v. France (dec.), no. 44190/98, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 22.06.2006 - 24245/03

  D. ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  Finally, there may be cases where someone has fled a State because he or she fears the implementation of a particular sentence that has already been passed upon him or her and is to be returned to that State, not under any extradition arrangement, but as a failed asylum seeker (see D. and Others v. Turkey, no. 24245/03, 22 June 2006).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 9644/09

  KAFKARIS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 9146/07

  The Court considers that, even assuming that this submission is intended to raise a separate issue from the complaint made under Article 3, it has been determined by its recent admissibility decision in Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no. 2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011.
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• BVerfG, 16.01.2010 - 2 BvR 2299/09

  Unzulässige Auslieferung an die Türkei (Staatsschutzdelikte; "erschwerte" …

• EGMR, 09.04.2024 - 19124/21

  MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA

  Referring to Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), it found that, on the facts of the case, a sentence of life imprisonment was fully justified, and that there was no requirement for the extraditing State to request any guarantees that such a sentence would be commuted.

  The applicants invited the Court to follow its approach in Trabelsi (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), which they submitted was consistent with its earlier case-law, including Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), and which had been confirmed in a series of subsequent judgments of the Court.

• EGMR, 04.09.2014 - 140/10

  Belgien wegen Auslieferung von Ex-Fußballprofi verurteilt

  Par un courrier du 25 juin 2012, 1a Cour informa les parties que l'examen de la demande de lever la mesure provisoire était reporté sine die vu la demande de renvoi devant la Grande Chambre dans les affaires Vinter et autres c. Royaume-Uni (no 66069/09) et Harkins et Edwards c. Royaume-Uni (nos 9146/07 et 32650/07).
• BVerfG, 04.05.2018 - 2 BvR 632/18

  Erfolglose Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen Ausweisung nach Tunesien

  (4) Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat die Bedeutung der fortgeltenden Strafzwecke (vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 17. Januar 2012 - 9146/07 et al. -, Harkins und Edwards/Großbritannien, Rn. 137 f.;… vom 10. April 2012 - 24027/07 et al. -, Babar Ahmad/Großbritannien, Rn. 241 f.;… vom 4. September 2014 - 140/10 -, Trabelsi/Belgien, Rn. 124 …und vom 17. Januar 2017 - 57592/08 -, Hutchinson/Großbritannien, Rn. 42) und die Menschenwürde (…vgl. EGMR, Urteile vom 9. Juli 2013 - 66069/09 et al. -, Vinter/Großbritannien, Rn. 113 …und vom 26. April 2016 - 10511/10 -, Murray/Niederlande, Rn. 101) als wesentliche, bei der von Art. 3 EMRK geforderten Überprüfung einer lebenslangen Freiheitsstrafe zu berücksichtigende Kriterien hervorgehoben.

 
• EGMR, 03.11.2022 - 22854/20

  SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Elle ne s'estima pas tenue de suivre l'arrêt Trabelsi qui, à la lumière du raisonnement exposé dans les arrêts R (Harkins) et Hafeez, constituait selon elle un revirement inexpliqué par rapport à l'approche que la Cour avait suivie dans l'arrêt Harkins et Edwards c. Royaume-Uni (nos 9146/07 et 32650/07, 17 janvier 2012 - paragraphe 35 ci-dessous).

  En janvier 2012, 1a chambre de la Cour constituée en l'affaire Harkins et Edwards c. Royaume-Uni (nos 9146/07 et 32650/07, arrêt du 17 janvier 2012) jugea que l'extradition du requérant n'emporterait pas violation de ses droits découlant de l'article 3 ; que la peine en cause ne serait pas « nettement disproportionnée'et que M. Harkins n'avait pas démontré que cette peine, s'il venait à être extradé, l'exposerait à un risque réel de traitement atteignant le niveau de gravité de l'article 3. Elle estima à cet égard qu'il n'avait pas établi que, s'il était reconnu coupable, son incarcération ne poursuivrait aucun but d'ordre pénologique, de sorte qu'aucune question relative à l'article 3 ne se poserait à ce moment-là.

  Il voit dans cet arrêt une continuation logique et claire des principes établis par la Cour dans l'arrêt Vinter et autres c. Royaume-Uni ([GC], nos 66069/09 et 2 autres, CEDH 2013 (extraits)) et non, comme l'a dit la juge de la High Court, un « revirement inexpliqué'par rapport à la jurisprudence Harkins et Edwards c. Royaume-Uni (nos 9146/07 et 32650/07, 17 janvier 2012).

• EGMR, 10.07.2017 - 71537/14

  HARKINS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012}}.

  In particular, he contended that the judgments in Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012), Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)) and - more recently - Murray v. the Netherlands [GC] (no. 10511/10, ECHR 2016) taken together had established new and more exacting criteria that had to be met before extradition to face a whole life sentence would be consistent with Article 3.

• EGMR, 07.09.2023 - 37726/21

  COMPAORÉ c. FRANCE

  À cet égard, la Cour n'a pas de raison de remettre en cause les observations du Gouvernement lorsqu'il fait état de relations diplomatiques de longue date avec le Burkina Faso, qui est l'un des critères importants de fiabilité des assurances (voir paragraphe 98, vii, ci-dessus, Othman (Abu Qatada), précité, ibidem, Harkins et Edwards c. Royaume-Uni, nos 9146/07 et 32650/07, § 85, 17 janvier 2012, et McCallum c. Italie (déc.) [GC], no 20863/21, § 51, 21 septembre 2022), et ce quels que soient les changements politiques successifs depuis l'accession du pays à l'indépendance en 1960 (paragraphe 87 ci-dessus).
• EGMR, 09.11.2023 - 49134/20

  LANG v. UKRAINE

  9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 85 and 86, 17 January 2012; and McCallum v. Italy (dec.) [GC], no. 20863/21, § 55, 21 September 2022).
• EGMR, 04.04.2019 - 36538/17

  G.S. v. BULGARIA

  They were first set out in Soering v. the United Kingdom (7 July 1989, §§ 81-91, Series A no. 161), and were more recently restated in detail in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey ([GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 66-70, ECHR 2005-I), Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07 and 4 others, §§ 167-79, 10 April 2012), Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, §§ 119-31, 17 January 2012), Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia (no. 71386/10, §§ 148-53, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) and Trabelsi v. Belgium (no. 140/10, §§ 116-20, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), as well as in a judgment against Bulgaria (see M.G. v. Bulgaria, no. 59297/12, §§ 74-82, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 30614/15

  LÓPEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN

  The Court draws no distinction in terms of the legal basis for removal; it adopts the same approach in cases of both expulsion and extradition (see Harkins and Edwards, no. 9146/07, § 120 17 January 2012 and Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, § 179, 10 April 2012, § 168).
• EGMR, 07.12.2017 - 43999/16
  The Court draws no distinction in terms of the legal basis for removal; it adopts the same approach in cases of both expulsion and extradition (see Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, § 120, 17 January 2012, and Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.
• EGMR, 25.09.2012 - 58555/10

  RRAPO v. ALBANIA
• EGMR - 41655/16 (anhängig)

  ANTIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 14198/20

  HAFEEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 20696/12

  KULEVSKIY v. RUSSIA