Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FILIPPOVY 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);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  PEREVEDENTSEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  For more details of the report see Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 70, 24 April 2014.

  The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 104-12, 31 January 2019, and Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-60, 15 June 2021.

• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 61, ECHR 2008; mutatis mutandis, Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 74, 10 February 2011; and El-Masri, cited above, §§ 182-85).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 26608/11

  T.M. AND C.M. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  Furthermore, Article 3 does not refer exclusively to the infliction of physical pain but also to that of mental suffering which is caused by creating a state of anguish and stress by means other than bodily assault (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 202, ECHR 2012), including fear of further assaults (see, mutatis mutandis, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 108, ECHR 2010; Eremia v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 3564/11, § 54, 28 May 2013; and T.M. and C.M. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 26608/11, § 41, 28 January 2014).

 
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

  PREMININY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 61, ECHR 2008; mutatis mutandis, Premininy v. Russia, no. 44973/04, § 74, 10 February 2011; and El-Masri, cited above, §§ 182-85).
• EGMR, 18.06.2019 - 74768/10

  CHERNEGA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  A Contracting State will be responsible under the Convention for violations of human rights caused by acts carried out by its agents or private individuals when certain criteria established by the Court's case-law are met (see, for instance, Chernega and Others v. Ukraine, no. 74768/10, §§ 125-27, 18 June 2019).
• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 11160/07

  D.F. v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  Taking into account the violence Ye.F. endured over a protracted period of time despite repeated requests to be transferred and the constant mental anxiety caused by the imminent risk of physical violence by his fellow conscripts (see, mutatis mutandis, D.F. v. Latvia, no. 11160/07, §§ 85 and 95, 29 October 2013) the Court comes to the conclusion that the failure to provide effective protection amounts to a violation of the substantive limb of Article 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 62903/15

  KURT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 104-12, 31 January 2019, and Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-60, 15 June 2021.
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  Rather, what is important - and what is sufficient to engage the responsibility of the State under that article - is that the reasonable measures that the domestic authorities failed to take could have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  MOSENDZ v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  In certain cases the Court has found that the States were required to take appropriate measures to combat hazing practices in their armed forces (see Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 113, 17 January 2013, and Perevedentsevy, §§ 99-100, cited above).
• RG, 29.09.1906 - V 22/06

  Öffentliche Flüsse

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  22/06/2022.
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02

  SERGEY SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  MARINA ALEKSEYEVA v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  LYUBOV VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA

  [1] See Filippovy v. Russia, 19355/09; Khudoroshko v. Russia, 3959/14; Nevostruyeva v. Russia (dec.), 51185/11, 1 June 2021; Nasibullin v. Russia (dec.), 64774/09, 7 January 2020; Pavlova v. Russia (dec.), 25835/10, 28 January 2020; and Khabirov v. Russia, no. 69450/10, 12 October 2021.