Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SERGEY SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 2 (no adequate investigation) No separate issue under Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (17) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94
AKTAS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 271, ECHR 2003-V (extracts)).The requisite independence was therefore lacking (cf. Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 301, ECHR 2003-V (extracts).
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
The Court reiterates that where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, Article 2 entails a duty for the State to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response - judicial or otherwise - so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-..., and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).This means hierarchical or institutional independence and also practical independence (see Paul and Audrey Edwards, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 70, ECHR 2002-II, and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 91, ECHR 2002-VIII).
- EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97
Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII).This means hierarchical or institutional independence and also practical independence (see Paul and Audrey Edwards, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 70, ECHR 2002-II, and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 91, ECHR 2002-VIII).
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
The Court recalls that an investigation will not be effective unless all the evidence is properly analysed and the conclusions are consistent and reasoned (Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 131, ECHR 2004-...). - EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
It is to be noted that in a number of cases the Court has considered the Contracting States" positive obligations flowing from this provision as regards the risk to a person derived from self-harm, including the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide (cf. Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 90, ECHR 2001-III, and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 89, 5 July 2005). - EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02
Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
They relied in this respect on the Court's statement in the Pretty case that "[Article 2] is unconcerned with issues to do with the quality of living or what a person chooses to do with his or her life" (Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 39, ECHR 2002-III). - EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII). - EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99
TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
It is to be noted that in a number of cases the Court has considered the Contracting States" positive obligations flowing from this provision as regards the risk to a person derived from self-harm, including the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide (cf. Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 90, ECHR 2001-III, and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 89, 5 July 2005). - EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96
CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII).
- EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23405/16
S.F. c. SUISSE
Ainsi, dans de nombreuses affaires, la Cour a pris en compte un certain nombre d'éléments tels que, par exemple, le fait que les enquêteurs sont des suspects potentiels (Bekta?Ÿ et Özalp c. Turquie, no 10036/03, § 66, 20 avril 2010, et Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 342, 18 juin 2002), qu'ils sont les collègues directs des personnes faisant l'objet de l'enquête ou susceptibles de l'être (Ramsahai et autres c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 52391/99, §§ 335-341, CEDH 2007-II, Emars c. Lettonie, no 22412/08, §§ 85 et 95, 18 novembre 2014, et Akta?Ÿ c. Turquie, no 24351/94, § 301, CEDH 2003-V), qu'ils ont des liens hiérarchiques avec les suspects potentiels (?žandru et autres c. Roumanie, no 22465/03, § 74, 8 décembre 2009, et Enoukidze et Guirgvliani c. Géorgie, no 25091/07, §§ 247 et suiv., 26 avril 2011) ou que le comportement concret des organes d'enquête dénote un manque d'indépendance, comme par exemple l'omission de certaines mesures qui s'imposaient pour élucider l'affaire et châtier les éventuels responsables (Sergueï Chevtchenko c. Ukraine, no 32478/02, §§ 72 et 73, 4 avril 2006). - EGMR, 15.09.2011 - 4737/06
KACHURKA v. UKRAINE
The relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure can be found in the judgment in the case of Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02, §§ 36-39, 4 April 2006).Analysing the facts of the present case in light of the general principles concerning the duty of the State to ensure an effective investigation of suspicious deaths (see e.g. Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 175-177, ECHR 2005 and Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, §§ 63-65, 4 April 2006), the Court notes at the outset that the authorities have taken a number of steps to establish the relevant circumstances of the present case.
- EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 39964/02
KHAYLO v. UKRAINE
The relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure can be found in the judgments in the cases of Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02, §§ 36-39, 4 April 2006), and Yakovenko v. Ukraine (no. 15825/06, §§ 46-47, 25 October 2007).Analysing the facts of the present case in light of the general principles concerning the duty of the States to ensure an effective investigation of suspicious deaths (see e.g. Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 175-177, ECHR 2005, and Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, §§ 63-65, 4 April 2006), the Court notes at the outset that the Government have presented no documents shedding light on the steps taken by the investigative authorities to discharge this duty.
- EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 34323/21
STEFAN-GABRIEL MOCANU c. ROUMANIE
En outre, l'état d'incompatibilité du procureur D. V. (paragraphe 19 f) ci-dessus) ne soulevant pas, en lui-même, un problème typique d'indépendance au sens des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention (voir, a contrario, Sergey Shevchencko c. Ukraine, no 32478/02, § 71, 4 avril 2006), il sera plutôt pris en compte dans le cadre de l'examen de l'adéquation et de la célérité de l'enquête. - EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17860/17
GOLOBORODKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
applicant's rights as a victim were not properly safeguarded (Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 74, 4 April 2006; Masneva. - EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 12991/10
MANDRYKA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
MASNEVA v. UKRAINE
Further relevant domestic law is quoted and summarised in the judgments of Gongadze v. Ukraine (no. 34056/02, §§ 147-149, ECHR 2005-XI) and Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02, §§ 36-39, 4 April 2006). - EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05
MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
The Court reiterates that where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, Article 2 entails a duty for the State to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response - judicial or otherwise - so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XII, and Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 63, 4 April 2006). - EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 35431/21
LEZNYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 59333/16
EDZGVERADZE v. GEORGIA
Furthermore, the most notable gap of the investigation was the fact that it did not offer any hypothesis as to why an individual with no prior suicidal intentions, psychological issues, or any other apparent problems (see paragraph 13 above) would commit suicide following an encounter with the police (see, mutatis mutandis, Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 69, 4 April 2006). - EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 14791/04
STYAZHKOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09
FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.08.2020 - 66975/10
REPEY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 12552/09
SHIYANOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 58347/08
YERMAKOVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 29971/04
KATS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 7529/07
SUPRUN v. UKRAINE