Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA

  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• faz.net (Pressemeldung, 31.05.2018)

  CIA-Gefängnisse beherbergt: Rumänien und Litauen verurteilt

• tagesschau.de (Pressebericht, 31.05.2018)

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

Besprechungen u.ä.

• lto.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  CIA-Geheimgefängnisse in Litauen und Rumänien: Die heimlichen Komplizen

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Al Nashiri v. Romania

  [29.06.2016]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (26)

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  In that regard, the Court would refer to its case-law to the effect that the concept of "jurisdiction" for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention must be considered to reflect the term's meaning in public international law (see Gentilhomme and Others v. France, nos. 48205/99, 48207/99 and 48209/99, § 20, judgment of 14 May 2002; Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 59-61, ECHR 2001-XII; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 137, ECHR 2004-II; and Ilascu and Others, cited above, §§ 311-312).

  The general principles deriving from the Court's case-law under Article 46 as to when, in such a situation, the Court may be led to indicate to the State concerned the adoption of individual measures, including the taking of "all possible steps" to obtain the appropriate diplomatic assurances from the destination State have been summarised in Al Nashiri v. Poland (cited above, §§ 586-588, with further references to the Court's case-law, in particular Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 209, ECHR 2012; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 198 and 202, ECHR 2004-II; see Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, §§ 138, 252-254 and 256, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi, cited above, § 170).

  Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, ECHR 2004-II.

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under Article 15 § 2 even in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation (see, among many other examples, Soering, cited above, § 88; Selmouni v. France, cited above, § 95; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Ilascu and Others, cited above, § 424; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 375, ECHR 2005-III; El-Masri, cited above, § 195; see also Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, §§ 26-31, ECHR 2001-XI).

  Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports 1996-V; see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV; Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 179 ECHR 2005-IV; El-Masri, cited above, § 195; Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 507; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 499; and Nasr and Ghali, cited above, § 280).

  Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV.

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among other examples, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 88, 23 February 2012; El-Masri, cited above, § 151; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 394; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 394; and Nasr and Ghali, cited above, § 119).

  43577/98 and 43579/98, ECHR 2005-VII.

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  In addition to the severity of the treatment, there is a purposive element, as recognised in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which came into force on 26 June 1987, which defines torture in terms of the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering with the aim, inter alia, of obtaining information, inflicting punishment or intimidating (Article 1 of the United Nations Convention) (see Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 85, ECHR 2000-VII; El-Masri, cited above, § 197; Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 508; and Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 500).

  Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII.

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Imakayeva, cited above, §§ 114-115; El-Masri, cited above, § 152; Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 396; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 396; and Nasr and Ghali, cited above, § 220).

  Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, ECHR 1999-IV.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Imakayeva, cited above, §§ 114-115; El-Masri, cited above, § 152; Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 396; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 396; and Nasr and Ghali, cited above, § 220).

  Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII.

• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  A person should not be treated in a way that causes a loss of dignity, as "the very essence of the Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom" (see Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, §§ 61 and 65, ECHR 2002-III).

  Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III.

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  The Court has already noted that it is not in a position to receive a direct account of the events complained of from the applicant (see paragraph 16 above; also, compare and contrast with other previous cases involving complaints about torture, ill-treatment in custody or unlawful detention, for example, El-Masri, cited above, §§ 16-36 and 156-167; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 13-24, ECHR 1999-V; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 16-18, ECHR 2006-IX; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 188-211, ECHR 2004-VII).

  Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-IX.

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  The Court has already noted that it is not in a position to receive a direct account of the events complained of from the applicant (see paragraph 16 above; also, compare and contrast with other previous cases involving complaints about torture, ill-treatment in custody or unlawful detention, for example, El-Masri, cited above, §§ 16-36 and 156-167; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 13-24, ECHR 1999-V; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 16-18, ECHR 2006-IX; and Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 188-211, ECHR 2004-VII).

  Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, ECHR 1999-V.

• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 13255/07

  Georgien ./. Russland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  The Court is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a Contracting State has violated fundamental rights (see, among other examples, Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 161, Series A no. 25; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII; Creanga v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 88, 23 February 2012; El-Masri, cited above, § 151; Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2014 (extracts); Al Nashiri v. Poland, cited above, § 394; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, cited above, § 394; and Nasr and Ghali, cited above, § 119).

  Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no. 13255/07, ECHR 2014 (extracts).

• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 25.04.2013 - 71386/10

  SAVRIDDIN DZHURAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.04.2005 - 36378/02

  CHAMAÏEV ET AUTRES c. GEORGIE ET RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 22.03.1995 - 18580/91

  QUINN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring
• EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99

  V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …
• EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89

  LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 19.11.2009 - 41015/04

  KABOULOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 5432/07

  KADIROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2002 - 48205/99

  GENTILHOMME, SCHAFF-BENHADJI ET ZEROUKI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 6884/11

  Polizeigewalt bei G8 in Genua 2001: Italien verurteilt
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 28.06.2018 - C-216/18

  Nach Ansicht von Generalanwalt Tanchev ist die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen …

  60 EGMR, 17. Januar 2012, 0thman (Abu Qatada) gegen Vereinigtes Königreich (CE:ECHR:2012:0117JUD000813909, § 263 bis 287), EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD000751113, § 559), EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Al Nashiri gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002876111, § 565 bis 569), und EGMR, 31. Mai 2018, Al Nashiri gegen Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2018:0531JUD003323412, § 719 bis 722).

  Eine ähnliche Argumentation findet sich in den § 719 bis 722 des Urteils des EGMR vom 31. Mai 2018, Al Nashiri gegen Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2018:0531JUD003323412).

  68 EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Al Nashiri gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002876111), und EGMR, 31. Mai 2018, Al Nashiri gegen Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2018:0531JUD003323412).

  71 EGMR, 24. Juli 2014, Al Nashiri gegen Polen (CE:ECHR:2014:0724JUD002876111), und EGMR, 31. Mai 2018, Al Nashiri gegen Rumänien (CE:ECHR:2018:0531JUD003323412).

• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 80982/12

  MUHAMMAD ET MUHAMMAD c. ROUMANIE

  [80] Usually, the Court associates the violation of the essence of the Convention right with a total deprivation of the possibility of exercising it, i.e., its destruction (Heaney and McGuinness, cited above, § 55; Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, § 44, ECHR 2002-IX: Appleby and Others, cited above, § 47; Aziz v. Cyprus, no. 69949/01, §§ 29 and 30, 22 June 2004; Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 101, ECHR 2006-IX; Othman (Abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom, no. 8139/09, § 260, ECHR 2012; R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 65; Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc., cited above, § 129; Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no. 18030/11, § 155, 8 November 2016; Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others, cited above, § 99; and Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, § 717, 31 May 2018).

  [119] See Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, 31 May 2018; Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, 24 July 2014; and Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania, no. 46454/11, 31 May 2018.

• EGMR, 16.12.2020 - 20958/14

  Krimkrise

  The burden of proof will only shift in this way where there are already concordant inferences supporting the applicant's allegations (see, mutatis mutandis, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2012; Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 49, ECHR 2014; and Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, § 493, 31 May 2018).

 
• EGMR - 31908/22 (anhängig)

  AL-NASHIRI v. LITHUANIA

  A detailed account of the HVD Programme can be found in the Court's judgments in Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, §§ 47-68, 24 July 2014; Husyan (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland (no. 7511/13, §§ 47-69, 24 July 2014); Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (no. 46454/11, §§ 20-53, 31 May 2018); and Al Nashiri v. Romania (no. 33234/12, §§ 22-61, 31 May 2018).

  In that regard, reference is made to Al Nashiri v. Romania (no. 33234/12, judgment of 31 May 2018) (§§ 719-22).

• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN v. AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY

  In certain circumstances, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation on how the events in question occurred (see Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, §§ 492-493, 31 May 2018, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 39611/18

  GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV)

  The burden of proof will only shift in this way where there are already concordant inferences supporting the applicant's allegations (see, mutatis mutandis, El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 152-53, ECHR 2012; Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, § 49, ECHR 2014; and Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, § 493, 31 May 2018).
• EGMR, 25.11.2021 - 10917/15

  SASSI ET BENCHELLALI c. FRANCE

  Elle souligne qu'elle a déjà eu l'occasion de relever que les conditions de détention dans la base de Guantánamo ont fait l'objet de dénonciations émanant de différentes sources accessibles au public, évoquant des allégations de mauvais traitements et d'abus sur des personnes suspectées de terrorisme et détenues par les autorités américaines dans ce cadre (voir, en particulier, Al Nashiri c. Pologne, no 28761/11, § 439, 24 juillet 2014, Al Nashiri c. Roumanie, no 33234/12, § 579, 31 mai 2018, et Abu Zubaydah c. Lituanie, no 46454/11, § 565, 31 mai 2018 ; cf., également, la partie « Texte de droit international et autres documents pertinents'de l'arrêt El-Masri c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine [GC], no 39630/09, §§ 99, 106-110, 111 et suivants, CEDH 2012).
• EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 1172/12

  MAMMADOV AND ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence, if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the Court to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred, strong inferences can be drawn (see Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, §§ 491-92, 31 May 2018).
• EGMR, 26.01.2023 - 60990/14

  B.Y. c. GRÈCE

  Appréciation de la Cour 77. Les principes généraux pertinents en l'espèce ont été résumés dans les arrêts El-Masri (précité, §§ 151-153), Sultygov et autres c. Russie (nos 42575/07 et 11 autres, §§ 393-396, 9 octobre 2014), Nasr et Ghali c. Italie (no 44883/09, §§ 280-283, 23 février 2016) et Al Nashiri c. Roumanie, (no 33234/12, §§ 490-498, 31 mai 2018, avec les références citées).