Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ISAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 34 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  "89. In the recent cases of Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 48609/06, 18 June 2013) and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania ([GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014), the Court reiterated the following principles.
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  Still in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has also accepted on several occasions that parents who did not have parental rights could apply to it on behalf of their minor children (see, in particular, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138-139, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, § 61, 12 July 2011; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 146-47, 27 September 2011; A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 48-50, 8 January 2013; and Raw and Others v. France, no. 10131/11, §§ 51-52, 7 March 2013).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  In the case of Ilhan v. Turkey ([GC], no. 22277/93, §§ 54-55, ECHR 2000-VII), where the direct victim, Abdüllatif Ilhan, had suffered severe injuries as a result of ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces, the Court held that his brother could be regarded as having validly introduced the application, based on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, since it was clear from the facts that Abdüllatif Ilhan had consented to the proceedings, there was no conflict of interests between himself and his brother, who had been closely concerned with the incident, and he was in a particularly vulnerable position because of his injuries.

 
• EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 24209/94

  Y.F. c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  In the case of Y.F. v. Turkey (no. 24209/94, § 31, ECHR 2003-IX), in which a husband alleged under Article 8 of the Convention that his wife had been forced to undergo a gynaecological examination following her detention in police custody, the Court found that it was open to the applicant, as a close relative of the victim, to make a complaint concerning allegations by her of violations of the Convention, in particular having regard to her vulnerable position in the special circumstances of the case.
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 48609/06

  NENCHEVA ET AUTRES c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  "89. In the recent cases of Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 48609/06, 18 June 2013) and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania ([GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014), the Court reiterated the following principles.
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 32250/08

  DIAMANTE AND PELLICCIONI v. SAN MARINO

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  Still in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has also accepted on several occasions that parents who did not have parental rights could apply to it on behalf of their minor children (see, in particular, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138-139, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, § 61, 12 July 2011; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 146-47, 27 September 2011; A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 48-50, 8 January 2013; and Raw and Others v. France, no. 10131/11, §§ 51-52, 7 March 2013).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 37956/11

  A.K. AND L. v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 52286/14

  Still in the context of Article 8 of the Convention, the Court has also accepted on several occasions that parents who did not have parental rights could apply to it on behalf of their minor children (see, in particular, Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, §§ 138-139, ECHR 2000-VIII; Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, no. 14737/09, § 61, 12 July 2011; Diamante and Pelliccioni v. San Marino, no. 32250/08, §§ 146-47, 27 September 2011; A.K. and L. v. Croatia, no. 37956/11, §§ 48-50, 8 January 2013; and Raw and Others v. France, no. 10131/11, §§ 51-52, 7 March 2013).

• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 10851/09

  IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Moreover, there have been no apparent reasons to consider that Mr Ivanov was a vulnerable person who was not able to lodge complaints to the Court himself (compare Isakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 52286/14, § 39 et seq., 5 July 2016, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania ([GC], no. 47848/08, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 41135/14

  AZIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that it has examined in detail an identical issue of locus standi in an earlier case before it concerning alleged abduction and disappearance of a national of Uzbekistan (see Isakov v. Russia (dec.), no. 52286/14, 5 July 2016).