Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible;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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  NAGMETOVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  Against this background and in so far as a monetary compensation is relevant in the present context (see, by way of comparison, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 127-131, 29 July 2010), it remains unclear whether the domestic law allows the adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time on account of the double violation under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention; see also Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 150, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  Otherwise, it would be possible in some cases for agents of the State to abuse the rights of those within their control with virtual impunity (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-104, Reports 1998-VI; Tanrikulu, cited above, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating a use of lethal force may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 150, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  However, based on the powers conferred on it by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court previously found it equitable to make a monetary award in respect of just satisfaction on account of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made, for instance taking into account the absolute character of the right violated (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in the context of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  Against this background and in so far as a monetary compensation is relevant in the present context (see, by way of comparison, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 127-131, 29 July 2010), it remains unclear whether the domestic law allows the adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time on account of the double violation under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention; see also Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  Against this background and in so far as a monetary compensation is relevant in the present context (see, by way of comparison, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 127-131, 29 July 2010), it remains unclear whether the domestic law allows the adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time on account of the double violation under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention; see also Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  Against this background and in so far as a monetary compensation is relevant in the present context (see, by way of comparison, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 127-131, 29 July 2010), it remains unclear whether the domestic law allows the adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time on account of the double violation under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention; see also Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).
• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  However, based on the powers conferred on it by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court previously found it equitable to make a monetary award in respect of just satisfaction on account of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made, for instance taking into account the absolute character of the right violated (see Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in the context of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2004 - 42066/98

  BURSUC c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41867/04

  BORODIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  ISLAMOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  CHUDUN v. RUSSIA