Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and one other application

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The Court has already noted the importance of a regular, uninterrupted supply of essential anti-tuberculosis drugs to patients, stating that the failure to ensure such is a key factor in tuberculosis treatment failure (see Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, § 98, 24 May 2016; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 94, 21 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The applicable general principles were set out in the cases of Karsakova v. Russia (no. 1157/10, §§ 46-49, 27 November 2014); Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06, §§ 68-72, 3 February 2011); and Slimani v. France, (no. 57671/00, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  It reiterates that the system required by Article 2 of the Convention must provide for an independent and impartial official investigation that satisfies certain minimum standards as to effectiveness (see Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 88, 5 July 2005).

 
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12

  KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  In order to establish whether or not the respondent State complied with its obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court must examine whether the domestic authorities did everything reasonably possible, in good faith and in a timely manner, to try to avert the fatal outcome of this case (see Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, § 81, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 3242/03

  GLADKIY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The Court has already noted the importance of a regular, uninterrupted supply of essential anti-tuberculosis drugs to patients, stating that the failure to ensure such is a key factor in tuberculosis treatment failure (see Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, § 98, 24 May 2016; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 94, 21 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 15.12.2015 - 30575/08

  IVKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The relevant provisions of domestic and international law on the general health care of detainees are set out in Ivko v. Russia (no. 30575/08, §§ 55-62, 15 December 2015).
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 1157/10

  KARSAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The applicable general principles were set out in the cases of Karsakova v. Russia (no. 1157/10, §§ 46-49, 27 November 2014); Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06, §§ 68-72, 3 February 2011); and Slimani v. France, (no. 57671/00, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 52526/07

  MAKSHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The Court has already noted the importance of a regular, uninterrupted supply of essential anti-tuberculosis drugs to patients, stating that the failure to ensure such is a key factor in tuberculosis treatment failure (see Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, § 98, 24 May 2016; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 94, 21 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8532/06

  GEPPA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The applicable general principles were set out in the cases of Karsakova v. Russia (no. 1157/10, §§ 46-49, 27 November 2014); Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06, §§ 68-72, 3 February 2011); and Slimani v. France, (no. 57671/00, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 25.10.2007 - 15825/06

  YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  The Court has already noted the importance of a regular, uninterrupted supply of essential anti-tuberculosis drugs to patients, stating that the failure to ensure such is a key factor in tuberculosis treatment failure (see Makshakov v. Russia, no. 52526/07, § 98, 24 May 2016; Gladkiy v. Russia, no. 3242/03, § 94, 21 December 2010; and Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 15825/06, §§ 98-102, 25 October 2007).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24421/11

  KARAKHANYAN v. RUSSIA