Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YANDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  YANDAYEVA AND KHAMAYEV v. RUSSIA and 10 other applications

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (27)

• EGMR - 29910/08 (anhängig)

  SULTAN MAGOMEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 9 othes applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08).

  The Court notes that the second applicant in Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Mr Alash Magomedov, died on 2 December 2010 after the case had been communicated to the Government, and that his widow, Ms Zakhra Magomadova, expressed her wish to pursue the application in his stead (see paragraph 50 above).

  In the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) the investigation was dormant between 9 October 2004 and 6 February 2007; however in the meantime the first applicant contacted the authorities, asking for assistance in the search for Mr Usman Magomadov (see paragraphs 65 and 66 above).

  The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities and to raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigation, but that the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) had failed to do so.

  In the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the applicants were abducted after having been stopped at checkpoints in the presence of many witnesses (see paragraphs 8, 52, 135 and 181 above).

  Moreover, in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the applicants learned from State agents that after the abductions in question their missing relatives had been arrested and placed in custody (see paragraphs 10, 54 and 182 above).

  In the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Akhilgovy v. Russia (no. 52051/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government submitted that the complaints should be rejected, because the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations that the enforced disappearances in question had been perpetrated by State servicemen.

  At the outset the Court notes with regret that in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files, as requested (see paragraphs 34, 59, and 187 above).

  The applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

  In addition, the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

  As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), the Court notes that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention, absorb its requirements.

  The applicants in the cases of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), and Akhilgovy v. Russia (no. 52051/11) based their calculations on either the average or the minimum monthly salary in Russia; the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuary Tables, using domestic subsistence levels.

  The fifth applicant in the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) claimed EUR 1, 147; the sixth applicant claimed EUR 2, 038; and the seventh applicant claimed EUR 5, 570.

  In the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government submitted that the award should be made in compliance with the Court's well-established case-law.

  In respect of the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) the Government also submitted that no compensation for pecuniary damage should be awarded to the second applicant's heir, Ms Zakhra Magomadova.

  The applicants in the case of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) left the determination of the amount to the Court's discretion.

  In the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) the Government submitted that no compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be awarded to the second applicant's heir, Ms Zakhra Magomadova.

  The applicants in the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) claimed EUR 2, 200 and GBP 1, 259 (about EUR 1, 420) for legal work, administrative expenses and translation costs.

  In the cases of Saynaroyevy Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government left the level of compensation to be awarded to the Court's discretion.

  The applicants in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) and Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) asked the Court to indicate that the respondent Government shall be obliged to identify and prosecute those responsible for the abduction of their relatives, and that the award of non-pecuniary damages should be coupled with the Court's decision that a fresh investigation should follow the entry into force of the Court's judgment.

  Decides that in the application Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) Ms Zakhra Magomadova has locus standi in the proceedings before the Court;.

  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.

  Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.

  29910/08.

• EGMR - 7651/08 (anhängig)

  SAYNAROYEV AND SAYNAROYEVA v. RUSSIA and 9 otjer applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08).

  In the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) on 21 November 2003 the applicants were informed that the proceedings had been resumed.

  The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities and to raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigation, but that the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) had failed to do so.

  In the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) Mr Sultan Saynaroyev was detained by a large group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms, who arrived in four AICs, one of which bore a large label reading "Rossiya" ( o���).

  At the outset the Court notes with regret that in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files, as requested (see paragraphs 34, 59, and 187 above).

  The applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

  In addition, the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

  As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), the Court notes that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention, absorb its requirements.

  The applicants in the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) did not seek compensation for pecuniary damage.

  The applicants in the case of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) left the determination of the amount to the Court's discretion.

  The applicants in the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) claimed EUR 2, 000 and 2, 556.84 pounds sterling (GBP) - (about EUR 2, 885) for legal work, administrative expenses and translation costs.

  In the cases of Saynaroyevy Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government left the level of compensation to be awarded to the Court's discretion.

  The applicants in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) and Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) asked the Court to indicate that the respondent Government shall be obliged to identify and prosecute those responsible for the abduction of their relatives, and that the award of non-pecuniary damages should be coupled with the Court's decision that a fresh investigation should follow the entry into force of the Court's judgment.

  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.

  Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.

  7651/08.

• RG, 18.04.1903 - I 30/03

  Nachverfahren.; Zwangsvollstreckung.

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  30/03/2011.

  30/03/1962.

 
• RG, 12.07.1905 - V 23/05

  Bergschäden

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  23/05/1945.

  23/05/1939.

• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).

  The Court has already concluded that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that have occurred in Chechnya between 2000 and 2006 constitutes a systemic problem, and that criminal investigations are not an effective remedy in this regard (see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, § 217, 18 December 2012).

• KAG Mainz, 30.10.2008 - M 26/08

  Eingruppierung Kirchenmusiker

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  26/08/1968.
• EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 17/02

  LIGERES v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  17/02/1958.
• VK Niedersachsen, 29.10.2002 - 23/02

  Leistungsbeschreibung: bei Unklarheiten in den Verdingungsunterlagen ist der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  23/02/1993.
• AG Wolgast, 07.11.2002 - L 7/01

  Erhöhung der Regelsätze für einen Zwangsverwalter in einem …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  07/01/2003.
• RG, 31.03.1903 - 28/03

  Zur Bestimmung des Begriffs "Standesherr" in § 7 des zum …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  28/03/2002.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.07.2007 - 15/04
• KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 25/09
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10

  DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  MUTSOLGOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 40166/07

  Russland muss Tschetschenen Schmerzensgeld zahlen
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 3340/08

  ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 9960/05

  TUMAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 11059/12

  ALIYEV AND GADZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07

  SULTYGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 12646/15

  MAYLENSKIY v. RUSSIA