Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/36378.02-en-20050412/
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 21:36:05
Document Index: 328041682

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 34', 'Art. 38', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 38', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 21', '§ 43', '§ 103', '§ 95', '§ 44', '§ 50', '§ 111', '§ 30', '§ 146', '§ 11', '§ 167', '§ 52', '§ 59', '§ 31', '§ 100', '§ 50', '§ 34', '§ 73', '§ 79', '§ 86', '§ 96', '§ 106', '§ 112', '§ 49', '§ 41', '§ 50', '§ 69', '§ 76', '§ 99', '§ 47', '§ 49', '§ 54', '§ 60', '§ 105', '§ 40', '§ 106', '§ 35', '§ 64', '§ 112', '§ 148', '§ 160', '§ 38', '§ 77', '§ 64', '§ 92', '§ 159', '§ 26', '§ 120', '§ 77', '§ 205', '§ 67', '§ 78', '§ 109', '§ 103', '§ 406', '§ 133', '§ 42', '§ 47', '§ 53', '§ 13', '§ 85', '§ 58', '§ 95', '§ 88', '§ 100', '§ 103', '§ 120', '§ 55', '§ 50', '§ 253', '§ 70', '§ 57', '§ 52', '§ 135', '§ 115', '§ 29', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 1', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 2', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'art. 5', 'art. 34', 'art. 5', 'art. 5', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 34', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5']

SHAMAYEV AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA / ECHR
SHAMAYEV AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA View
AppNr 36378/02
Articles 13+2; 13+3; 2-1; 3; 32; 34; 35-1; 38-1-a; 41; 5-1-c; 5-1-f; 5-2; 5-4; 6-1; 6-2; 6-3; P4-4
Violated / NonViolated 235-25-413235-1
Citations 2355-15-1-c5-1-f5-25-35-45-56-16-2891334P4-22355-15-1-f5-266-16-26-3-d81334
Failure by Georgia to discharge its obligations under Art. 34 as regards 4 applicants
Failure by Russia to discharge its obligation to furnish necessary facilities under Art. 38
Failure by Russia to discharge its obligations under Art. 34 as regards 7 applicants
Government's preliminary objections dismissed
Incompatibility ratione personae of the complaints under Art. 2 and 3 concerning the extradition of 5 applicants to Russia
No jurisdiction to examine certain complaints
No violation of Art. 2 as regards one applicant
No violation of Art. 2 by Georgia as regards 5 extradited applicants
No violation of Art. 3 by Georgia as regards 5 extradited applicants
No violation of Art. 5-1 as regards detention in Georgia
Not necessary to examine Art. 3 regarding the extradition of 2 applicants to Russia
Not necessary to examine complaint of one applicant under Art. 2-1 and P4-4
Reimbursement of costs incurred before the Court
Violation of Art. 13+3 by Georgia as regards 5 applicants
Violation of Art. 3 by Georgia as regards the treatment inflicted on 11 applicants
Violation of Art. 3 in the event of the extradition of one applicant
Violation of Art. 5-2 by Georgia as regards all the applicants
Violation of Art. 5-4 by Georgia as regards all the applicants
Published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2005-III
Application Number 36378/02
Represented by MUKHASHAVRIA L. DZAMOUKACHVILI M.
Conclusion Government's preliminary objections dismissed ; No violation of Art. 2 as regards one applicant ; No violation of Art. 3 by Georgia as regards 5 extradited applicants ; Incompatibility ratione personae of the complaints under Art. 2 and 3 concerning the extradition of 5 applicants to Russia ; Not necessary to examine Art. 2 and 3 regarding the extradition of 2 applicants to Russia ; Violation of Art. 3 in the event of the extradition of one applicant ; No violation of Art. 2 by Georgia as regards 5 extradited applicants ; Violation of Art. 3 by Georgia as regards the treatment inflicted on 11 applicants ; No violation of Art. 5-1 as regards detention in Georgia ; Violation of Art. 5-2 by Georgia as regards all the applicants ; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3 ; Violation of Art. 5-4 by Georgia as regards all the applicants ; Violation of Art. 13+2 and 13+3 by Georgia as regards 5 applicants ; Not necessary to examine complaint of one applicant under Art. 2-1 and P4-4 ; Failure by Georgia to discharge its obligations under Art. 34 as regards 4 applicants ; Failure by Russia to discharge its obligations under Art. 34 as regards 7 applicants ; Failure by Russia to discharge its obligation to furnish necessary facilities under Art. 38 ; No jurisdiction to examine certain complaints ; Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ; Reimbursement of costs incurred before the Court
Articles 2-1 ; 3 ; 5-1-c ; 5-1-f ; 5-2 ; 5-4 ; 6-1 ; 6-2 ; 6-3 ; 13+2 ; 13+3 ; 32 ; 34 ; 35-1 ; 38-1-a ; 41 ; P4-4
Rules of Court Article 39
Law at Issue Georgian Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 256 and 259; the Georgian Supreme Court's precedent in the Aliev case, judgment of 28 October 2002; Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, Articles 1 § 3 and 2 § 3; Presidential Decree of 16 May 1996 on the gradual elimination of the death penalty as a result of Russia's membership of the Council of Europe; the Russian Constitutional Court's judgment of 2 February 1999
Strasbourg Case Law A. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI, p. 2699, § 21; Ahmed v. Austria, judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, pp. 2207 and 2208, §§ 43 and 49; Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports 1996-IV, pp. 1218 and 1219, §§ 103 and 105; Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2286, § 95; Algür v. Turkey, no. 32574/96, § 44, 22 October 2002; Amuur v. France, judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports 1996-III, pp. 850-51, § 50; Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 111, ECHR 2002-IV; Artico v. Italy, judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A no. 37, pp. 14-15, § 30; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 146, 149 and 162, ECHR 2004-II; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3271-72, § 11; Berktay v. Turkey, no. 22493/93, § 167, 1 March 2001; Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52; Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, pp. 25-26, § 59; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 31, ECHR 2002-III; Caloc v. France, no. 33951/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-IX; Camenzind v. Switzerland, judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, pp. 2895-96, § 50; Cardot v. France, judgment of 19 March 1991, Series A no. 200, p. 18, § 34; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1853, §§ 73-74, p. 1855, § 79, p. 1856, § 86, p. 1859, § 96, p. 1861, § 106, p. 1862, § 112; Cyprus v. Turkey, no. 8007/77, report of the Commission of 4 October 1983, Decisions and Reports 72, pp. 73 and 74, §§ 49 and 52; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 41-42, § 50, ECHR 2002-I; Conka and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 51564/99, 13 March 2001; Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, §§ 69-70, p. 30, § 76, pp. 35-36, § 99; D. v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 May 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 792, §§ 47-48; De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, p. 29, § 49; Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, § 54, ECHR 2001-II; Ergi v. Turkey, judgment of 28 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1769-71, §§ 60-64, p. 1784, § 105; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 19-20, §§ 40-43; Guzzardi v. Italy, judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39, pp. 39-40, § 106; H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports 1997-III, p. 757 and 759, §§ 35 and 42; Hilal v. the United Kingdom, no. 45276/99, § 64, ECHR 2001-II; Ipek v. Turkey, no. 25760/94, § 112, ECHR 2004-II; Ireland v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, pp. 59-60, § 148, pp. 64-65, §§ 160, 161 and 163; Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, §§ 38, 39, 41, 48 and 50, ECHR 2000-VIII; Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 322, § 77; Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia (dec.), nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 19 December 2002; Klass and Others v. Germany, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, § 64; Kolompar v. Belgium, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C; Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 92, ECHR 2000-XI; Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, pp. 1192-93, §§ 159-60; the Greek case, applications nos. 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67 and 3344/67, report of the Commission of 5 November 1969, Yearbook 12, p. 13, § 26; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV; Leander v. Sweden, judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 29, § 77 a); Lithgow and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 74, § 205; Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, §§ 67, 108 and 128, ECHR 2005-I; Murray v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, p. 33, § 78; Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, § 109, 10 February 2004; Nsona v. the Netherlands, judgment of 28 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 2004, § 103; Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46221/99, 14 December 2000; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 406 and 409, 18 June 2002; Poltoratskiy v. Ukraine, no. 38812/97, § 133, ECHR 2003-V; Quinn v. France, judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 17, § 42, pp. 18-19, § 47; Raf v. Spain, no. 53652/00, § 53, 17 June 2003; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 9 and 26, §§ 13 and 39; Sarli v. Turkey, no. 24490/94, §§ 85-86, 22 May 2001; Satik and Others v. Turkey, no. 31866/96, § 58, 10 October 2000; Scott v. Spain, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 95, ECHR 1999-V; Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia (dec.), no. 36378/02, 16 September 2003; Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 34-36, §§ 88-91, p. 39, § 100, pp. 40-43, §§ 103-08, p. 47, § 120; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 55 and 57, ECHR 2001-IX; Swedish Engine Drivers' Union v. Sweden, judgment of 6 February 1976, Series A no. 20, p. 18, § 50; Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 253 and 254, ECHR 2004-III; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 70, 129 and 132, ECHR 1999-IV; Tekdag v. Turkey, no. 27699/95, § 57, 15 January 2004; Tekin v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1517-518, §§ 52-53; Tepe v. Turkey, no. 27244/95, § 135, 9 May 2003; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 42, § 115; Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, pp. 14-15, §§ 29-30; United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 30 January 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 17, § 28; Van der Leer v. the Netherlands, judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 170-A, p. 13, § 28; Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, judgm
External Sources Convention of 22 January 1993 on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters ("the Minsk Convention"), Articles 56 and 80; European Convention on Extradition, Articles 11, 28 §§ 1 and 2
Keywords "(Art. 13) EFFECTIVE REMEDY" "(Art. 2-1) LIFE" "(Art. 3) EXTRADITION" "(Art. 3) INHUMAN TREATMENT" "(Art. 34) HINDER THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION" "(Art. 34) VICTIM" "(Art. 35-1) EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES" "(Art. 5-1) LAWFUL ARREST OR DETENTION" "(Art. 5-1-c) REASONABLE SUSPICION" "(Art. 5-1-f) EXTRADITION" "(Art. 5-2) INFORMATION ON REASONS FOR ARREST" "(Art. 5-4) REVIEW OF LAWFULNESS OF DETENTION"
RAF v. SPAIN
5 Court (Fourth Section) Judgment (Merits)
3, 13 Court (Chamber) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)
D.P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
17 (art. 5-1) lawful arrest or detention
13 (art. 34) hinder the exercise of the right of petition
7 (art. 5-1-f) extradition
5 (art. 5-2) information on reasons for arrest
12 5-1-f
23 Violation of Art. 3
14 Violation of Art. 5-4
9 Violation of Art. 34
6 Violation of Art. 5-2
6 Violation of Art. 5-1-f