Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NASIRKHAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

  MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  It follows that the obligation of diligence incumbent on applicants contains two distinct but closely linked aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must contact the domestic authorities promptly concerning progress in the investigation - which implies the need to apply to them with diligence, since any delay risks compromising the effectiveness of the investigation - and, on the other, they must lodge their application promptly with the Court as soon as they become aware or should have become aware that the investigation is not effective (see Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013; and Gusar v. Moldova (dec.), no. 37204/02, §§ 14-17, 30 April 2013).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 2429/13

  SARI c. TURQUIE

  Ceci étant dit, la Cour souligne que les situations continues - comme c'était le cas à la date de l'introduction de la présente requête - ne sont pas toutes identiques ; comme le Gouvernement le rappelle (paragraphe 29 ci-dessus), s'agissant d'une enquête pour décès suspect d'un proche, les requérants sont, d'une part, censés prendre des mesures pour se tenir au courant de l'état d'avancement de l'enquête, ou de sa stagnation, et, d'autre part, introduire leurs requêtes avec la célérité voulue dès lors qu'ils savent, ou devraient savoir, qu'aucune enquête pénale effective n'est menée (Bulut et Yavuz c. Turquie (déc.), no 73065/01, 28 mai 2002, Bayram et Yildirim c. Turquie (déc.), no 38587/97, CEDH 2002-III, Nasirkhayeva c. Russie (déc.), no 1721/07, 31 mai 2011, Akhvlediani et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), nos 22026/10 et 9 autres, §§ 23-29, 9 avril 2013, et Gusar c. République de Moldova et Roumanie (déc.), no 37204/02, §§ 14-17, 30 avril 2013, et Mocanu et autres, précité, § 261 à 263 - pour une analyse générale de ce point spécifique, voir aussi, Varnava et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 16064/90 et 8 autres, §§ 156 à 159, CEDH 2009).
• EGMR, 10.11.2015 - 3534/06

  INCIN c. TURQUIE

  Il s'ensuit que l'obligation de diligence incombant aux requérants comporte deux aspects distincts quoique étroitement liés: d'une part, les intéressés doivent s'enquérir promptement auprès des autorités internes de l'avancement de l'enquête - ce qui implique la nécessité de les saisir avec diligence car tout retard risque de compromettre l'effectivité de l'enquête, et, d'autre part, ils doivent promptement saisir la Cour dès qu'ils se rendent compte ou auraient dû se rendre compte que l'enquête n'est pas effective (Nasirkhayeva c. Russie (déc.), no 1721/07, 31 mai 2011, Akhvlediani et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), no 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 avril 2013, Gusar c. Moldova (déc.), no 37204/02, §§ 14-17, 30 avril 2013, et Mocanu et autres, précité, §§ 264-266).

 
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 26344/06

  AFONICHEV c. RUSSIE

  En l'absence d'autres éléments, la Cour ne peut que partager l'avis du requérant et considère qu'un tel développement, intervenu après une interruption de neuf ans, ne saurait constituer un recours interne effectif (voir, mutatis mutandis, Finozhenok c. Russie (déc.), no 3025/06, 31 mai 2011 et Nasirkhayeva c. Russie (déc.), no 1721/07, 31 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 4800/10

  SHAVLOKHOVA v. GEORGIA

  The Court reiterates that, pursuant to the principle of legal certainty, which is a cornerstone of the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, a victim of an action allegedly in contravention of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention must take steps to keep track of the relevant criminal proceedings or lack thereof, and to lodge his or her application with due expedition once he or she becomes, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see, amongst many other authorities, Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013; Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, 9 October 2012; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  MANUKYAN v. GEORGIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 48347/08

  BEKOYEVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  However, the Court considers that whenever massive armed clashes or other general and violent security incidents which have resulted in numerous and often unreported deaths are at stake (compare, mutatis mutandis, Hanan, cited above, § 218), it becomes of particular significance for the purported next-of-kin of the people who have been killed to provide the domestic authorities with prima facie evidence in support of their allegations under Article 2 of the Convention (compare, mutatis mutandis, Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011, and Umarov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30788/02, 18 May 2006).
• EGMR, 29.03.2016 - 73411/10

  M.Y. AND E.C. v. CYPRUS

  With regard to the second aspect of this duty of diligence - that is, the duty on the applicant to lodge an application with the Court as soon as he or she realises, or ought to have realised, that the investigation is not effective - the Court has stated that the issue of identifying the exact point in time that this stage occurs necessarily depends on the circumstances of the case and that it is difficult to determine it with precision (see Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12

  VARTIC v. ROMANIA

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009; see also, Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010, MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011, Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011, Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011, and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).