Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHAIPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 20.03.1991 - 15576/89

  CRUZ VARAS ET AUTRES c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  Furthermore, in the absence of a finding of State responsibility for Akhmed Shaipov's kidnapping, the Court is not persuaded that the investigating authorities" conduct, although negligent to the extent that it has breached Article 2 in its procedural aspect, could have in itself caused the applicants mental distress in excess of the minimum level of severity which is necessary in order to consider treatment as falling within the scope of Article 3 (see, among other authorities, Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden, 20 March 1991, § 83, Series A no. 201).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  Referring to its settled case-law, the Court reiterates that, where a person has been abducted by State security forces and subsequently disappeared, his or her relatives can claim to be victims of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of their mental distress caused by the "disappearance" of their family member and the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see, among many other authorities, Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III; and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 63758/00

  ANIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  Having regard to the findings of a violation of Article 2 under its procedural head (see paragraph 87 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need to make a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI, and Anık and Others v. Turkey, no. 63758/00, § 86, 5 June 2007).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324 and Avsar, cited above, § 391).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  Such delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case, not only demonstrate the authorities" failure to act of their own motion but also constitute a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336; and Avsar, cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  The Court has found the Russian State authorities responsible for extra-judicial executions or disappearances of civilians in the Chechen Republic in a number of cases, even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, 12 October 2006; Imakayeva, cited above; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence requiring the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicants" allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-...).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

  BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00

  ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01

  ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 21055/09

  KHAYDAROV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to its above findings (see paragraph 114 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to carry out a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 52466/08

  KHODZHAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to its above findings (see paragraph 104 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to make a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  KLEIN v. RUSSIA

  In such circumstances the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3 is admissible, there is no need to make a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI; and Anık and Others v. Turkey, no. 63758/00, § 86, 5 June 2007).