Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VASÎLCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VASILCA v. MOLDOVA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  Where a death results, the investigation assumes even greater importance, given that the essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death, or the person or persons responsible, will risk falling foul of this standard (see Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V, and Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 20.02.2007 - 46748/99

  SALGIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  The Court would emphasise that Article 2 requires more than merely informing the next-of-kin of the progress of the investigation: it includes their active involvement in it (see Salgın v. Turkey, no. 46748/99, § 89, 20 February 2007).

 
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 27243/95

  SABUKTEKIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, § 98, ECHR 2002-II; Kavak v. Turkey, no. 53489/99, § 45, 6 July 2006; and Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38501/02

  AL FAYED c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, § 98, ECHR 2002-II; Kavak v. Turkey, no. 53489/99, § 45, 6 July 2006; and Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 53489/99

  KAVAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, § 98, ECHR 2002-II; Kavak v. Turkey, no. 53489/99, § 45, 6 July 2006; and Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death, or the person or persons responsible, will risk falling foul of this standard (see Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V, and Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  Moreover, substantial delays in involving the next-of-kin in investigative procedures are not acceptable (see Mikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4762/05, § 132, 17 December 2009, and Anusca v. Moldova, no. 24034/07, § 44, 18 May 2010).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 20289/02

  GUTU v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  In this case, the applicant had a strong and legitimate interest in the conduct of the investigation which would have been served by granting her the special status under the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 21 above; see also Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007 and Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, § 90, 2 November 2010 concerning the procedural shortcomings where no proper criminal investigation is initiated).
• EGMR, 02.11.2010 - 38281/08

  MATASARU AND SAVITCHI v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 69527/10

  In this case, the applicant had a strong and legitimate interest in the conduct of the investigation which would have been served by granting her the special status under the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 21 above; see also Gutu v. Moldova, no. 20289/02, § 61, 7 June 2007 and Matasaru and Savitchi v. Moldova, no. 38281/08, § 90, 2 November 2010 concerning the procedural shortcomings where no proper criminal investigation is initiated).
• EGMR, 18.05.2010 - 24034/07

  ANUSCA v. MOLDOVA

• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 22412/08

  EMARS v. LATVIA

  On the contrary, the mere fact that the domestic authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see, for example, Vasîlca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 69527/10, § 28, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 20.01.2022 - 59333/16

  EDZGVERADZE v. GEORGIA

  However, considering the alleged causal connection between the two events - his questioning as a witness at the police station and the suicide the following day - as well as the applicant's related complaints (see paragraph 13 above), the authorities were under an obligation to treat the suicide as having taken place in suspicious circumstances (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 171, and Vasîlca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 69527/10, § 28, 11 February 2014).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 53918/11

  VELESCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court has stressed on many occasions that the involvement of the next-of-kin serves to ensure public accountability of the authorities and public scrutiny of their actions in such situations (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 321, ECHR 2007-II, and Vasîlca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 69527/10, § 34, 11 February 2014), to the extent necessary to safeguard the person's legitimate interests.
• EGMR, 15.09.2015 - 37847/13

  LARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Moreover, substantial delays in involving the next of kin in investigative procedures are not acceptable (see Mikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4762/05, § 132, 17 December 2009; and Vasîlca v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 69527/10, § 34, 11 February 2014).