Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARDANYAN AND KHALAFYAN v. ARMENIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VARDANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  SEJDIC ET FINCI c. BOSNIE-HERZÉGOVINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  On the other hand, while the Government did not explicitly contest the third applicant's victim status based on his relationship with the deceased, this aspect of compatibility ratione personae calls for consideration ex officio by the Court (see, for example, Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 27, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 93 and 97 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 99 and 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83, ECHR 2015).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 of the Convention and, whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 139, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 93 and 97 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13

  SABALIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Lastly, when the official investigation has led to the institution of proceedings in the national courts, the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must satisfy the requirements of the positive obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95, ECHR 2004-XII, and Sabalic v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 97, 14 January 2021).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09

  VAN COLLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  As regards the Government's second objection (see paragraph 64 above), according to the Court's case-law, close family members, including a parent or a sibling, of a person whose death is alleged to engage the responsibility of the respondent State can themselves claim to be indirect victims of an alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, the question of whether they were legal heirs of the deceased not being relevant (see, among other authorities, Velikova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41488/98, ECHR 1999-V (extracts); Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 86, 13 November 2012; and Ayvazyan v. Armenia, no. 56717/08, § 60, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12

  KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  In cases like the present one where the alleged ill-treatment is closely linked to the victim's death, close family members can also legitimately claim to be victims of a violation of both substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention (see Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, § 105, 11 February 2016, with further citations).
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 67258/13

  MYUMYUN v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  This includes the sanctions imposed at the end of those proceedings (see Myumyun v. Bulgaria, no. 67258/13, § 67, 3 November 2015).

• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 6406/21

  M.G. v. LITHUANIA

  The Court's task therefore consists in reviewing whether and to what extent the courts, in reaching their conclusion, may be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 3 of the Convention, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment are not undermined (see Myumyun v. Bulgaria, no. 67258/13, §§ 66-67, 3 November 2015; Sabalic v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 97, 14 January 2021; and Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, § 83, 8 November 2022).