Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KNYAZKINY v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR - 24592/10

  Have the authorities discharged their burden of proof by providing a plausible or satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the applicants" injuries were caused (see Selmouni, cited above, § 87, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83 and further, ECHR 2015)?.

• EGMR, 05.07.2022 - 50942/08

  IVANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objections 3. In their additional observations and submissions on just satisfaction in the cases of Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592/10) and Mr I.Z. (no. 62510/12) the Government submitted for the first time that the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

  Effectiveness of the investigation into the alleged ill-treatment 10. Firstly, the investigative authorities dismissed the credible allegations of ill-treatment by State officers in the cases of Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08), Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592/10), Mr Krysyuk (no.75186/11) and Mr Demerchyan (no. 29330/15) after summary pre-investigative inquiries.

  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION UNDER THE WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 20. Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08), Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no.24592/10), Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11), Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no.13123/16) submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see Appendix II).

  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 21. Lastly, the Court has examined the remaining complaint under Article 6 of the Convention submitted by Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin (the first applicant in the case no. 24592/10) regarding the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

  Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (no. 24592/10), made no claims regarding just satisfaction.

  Decides to join the applications; Declares Mr Aleksandr Knyazkin's (the first applicant in the case no. 24592/10) complaint under Article 6 of the Convention inadmissible and the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in respect of all of the applicants; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Vyacheslav Piskunov and Mr Gennadiy Piskunov (no. 13123/16); Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Ivanov (no. 50942/08) and Mr Andrey Knyazkin (the second applicant in the case no. 24592/10); Holds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11); Holds that the respondent State has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in the case of Mr Krysyuk (no. 75186/11); Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Article 13 of the Convention; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendix II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them.

  24592/10.

  24592/10.