Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=12.05.2010&Aktenzeichen=52466/08
Timestamp: 2019-05-19 21:45:28
Document Index: 291018472

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 41', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', '§ 144', '§ 156', '§ 151', '§ 104', '§ 112', '§ 72', '§ 93', '§ 104', '§ 101', '§ 4', '§ 125', '§ 77', '§ 139', '§ 141', '§ 1', '§ 151', '§ 1', '§ 134']

EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08 - dejure.org
https://dejure.org/2010,63176
EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,63176)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.05.2010 - 52466/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,63176)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Mai 2010 - 52466/08 (https://dejure.org/2010,63176)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63176) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. f, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Tajikistan) Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Having regard to these findings, it considers that it is not necessary to examine this complaint separately on the merits (see, among other authorities, Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, § 144, 21 October 2010; Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, § 156, 20 May 2010; and Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 151, 12 May 2010).
The Court is therefore unable to conclude that the Bulgarian authorities have duly addressed the applicant's concerns with regard to Article 3 (see, mutatis mutandis, Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 104, 12 May 2010, and Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, §§ 112-14, 20 May 2010).
Thus, the Court has already examined cases involving extradition to Tajikistan of persons charged with politically and/or religiously motivated criminal offences (see Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Khaydarov v. Russia, no. 21055/09, 20 May 2010; and Gaforov, cited above).
The reports on the situation in Tajikistan are summarised in Khodzhayev v. Russia (no. 52466/08, §§ 72-74, 12 May 2010), and Gaforov v. Russia (no. 25404/09, §§ 93-100, 21 October 2010), and the most recent ones appear in Savriddin Dzhurayev (cited above, §§ 104-07).
It is also noted that in a recent judgment against Russia the Court has found that there were serious reasons to believe in the existence of the practice of persecution of members and supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, whose underlying aims appear to be both religious and political (see Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 101, 12 May 2010).
The Court reiterates that by virtue of Article 5 § 4 the applicant was entitled to apply to a "court" having jurisdiction to decide "speedily" whether or not his deprivation of liberty had become "unlawful" in the light of new factors which had emerged subsequently to the decision on his initial placement in custody (see, for example, Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, §§ 125-31, 12 May 2010).
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention and the Court's case-law (he referred to Ismoilov and Others v. Russia, no. 2947/06, 24 April 2008; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, 11 December 2008; Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, 12 May 2010; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, 8 July 2010; Yuldashev v. Russia, no. 1248/09, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, 29 July 2010; Gaforov v. Russia, no. 25404/09, 21 October 2010; Sultanov v. Russia, no. 15303/09, 4 November 2010; and Yakubov v. Russia, no. 7265/10, 8 November 2011), he argued that members of Hizb ut-Tahrir were at an increased risk of ill-treatment.
In view of this, and having regard to its extensive case-law on the subject (see, amongst many other authorities, Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 77, 11 October 2007; Ismoilov and Others, cited above, § 139; and, more recently, Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 141, 12 May 2010), the Court finds that this period of the applicant's detention pending extradition cannot be considered "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Having regard to the findings relating to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention under its procedural limb (see paragraphs 9 and 80 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there have been violations of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 151, 12 May 2010).
Compliance with national law is not, however, sufficient: Article 5 § 1 requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Khodzhayev v. Russia, no. 52466/08, § 134, 12 May 2010).