Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MASKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MASKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Maskhadova and Others v. Russia

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18071/05
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  Under certain conditions, the aggregate of remedies provided for under domestic law may satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (see, in particular, Leander v. Sweden, 26 March 1987, § 77, Series A no. 116).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  It does not go so far as to guarantee a remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 40, Series A no. 247-C), but seeks only to ensure that anyone who makes an arguable complaint about a violation of a Convention right will have an effective remedy in the domestic legal order (ibid., § 39).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  However, Article 13 requires that a remedy be available in domestic law only in respect of grievances which can be regarded as "arguable" in terms of the Convention (see, for example, Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 54, Series A no. 131).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  The Court reiterates that under its Article 8 case-law the concepts of "private life" and "family life" are broad terms not susceptible to exhaustive definition (see, for example, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, § 61, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 30562/04

  S. und Marper ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  An interference will be considered "necessary in a democratic society" for a legitimate aim if it answers a "pressing social need" and, in particular, if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are "relevant and sufficient" (see, for example, S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008, and Coster v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24876/94, § 104, 18 January 2001).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  In that connection the competent authorities must act with diligence and promptness and must of their own motion initiate investigations which would be capable of, firstly, ascertaining the circumstances in which the incident took place and, secondly, identifying the person or persons responsible for the death in question (see, for example, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324; Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 81-82, Reports 1998-IV; OÄŸur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  Under the Court's case-law, the expression "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 § 2 requires, among other things, that the measure or measures in question should have some basis in domestic law (see, for example, Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia, no. 9390/05, §§ 104-07, 3 November 2011), but also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned and foreseeable as to its effects (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 52, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  The object and purpose of the Convention, being a human rights treaty protecting individuals on an objective basis (see Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 145, ECHR 2010), call for its provisions to be interpreted and applied in a manner that renders its guarantees practical and effective (see, among other authorities, Artico v. Italy, 13 May 1980, § 33, Series A no. 37).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  In that connection the competent authorities must act with diligence and promptness and must of their own motion initiate investigations which would be capable of, firstly, ascertaining the circumstances in which the incident took place and, secondly, identifying the person or persons responsible for the death in question (see, for example, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324; Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 81-82, Reports 1998-IV; OÄŸur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III; and Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  The Court reiterates that where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, Article 2 entails a duty for the State to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response - judicial or otherwise - so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are prevented and punished (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II, and Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 30.10.2001 - 37794/97

  PANNULLO ET FORTE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05

  ALEKSANDRA DMITRIYEVA v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  It has also held that the refusal of the investigating authorities to return the bodies of deceased persons to their relatives constituted an interference with the applicants" private and family life (see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 123, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 212, 6 June 2013).
• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 12981/15

  TASHUYEV v. RUSSIA

  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 18. For a summary of the relevant domestic law, see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, §§ 33-37 and 65-90, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, §§ 116-46, 6 June 2013.

  The submissions by the parties 21. The Government maintained that the decision of 25 April 2016 had been taken pursuant to the Suppression of Terrorism Act, the Interment and Burial Act and the decree on combating terrorism and was justified in view of the reasons provided by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 28 June 2007 (see Maskhadova and Others, v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 125, 6 June 2013).

• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 48057/08

  BAPINAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and other relevant sources, see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 38450/05, §§ 33-37 and 65-96, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), and Maskhadova and Others v. Russia (no. 18071/05, §§ 116-50, 6 June 2013).

  The relevant parts of that ruling are reproduced in the Court's judgments in Sabanchiyeva and Others (ibid., §§ 33-37) and in Maskhadova and Others v. Russia (no. 18071/05, § 130, 6 June 2013).

 
• EGMR, 29.01.2019 - 62257/15

  MIFSUD v. MALTA

  In the Court's view, the remaining questions related to the measure's lawfulness, such as the consequences of the measure on the proceedings, the automatic nature of the rule and the alleged unforseeability in certain cases, are closely linked to the issue of proportionality and fall to be examined as an aspect thereof, under paragraph 2 of Article 8 (see, mutatis mutandis, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 216, 6 June 2013; T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom, [GC], no. 28945/95, § 72, ECHR 2001-V, and Chapman v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27238/95, § 92, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 24.04.2018 - 4587/09

  LOZOVYYE v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that various aspects of funeral rites fall within the scope of both "private life" and "family life" within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for example, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 212, 6 June 2013; Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 123, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Hadri-Vionnet v. Switzerland, no. 55525/00, § 52, 14 February 2008).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 21885/07

  KUSHTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law, see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, §§ 33-37 and 65-90, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, §§ 116-146, 6 June 2013.
• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  GURBANOV v. ARMENIA

  In view of the above, and having regard to its relevant case-law on the matter (see, for instance, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 208, 6 June 2013, and the references cited therein; mutatis mutandis, Polat v. Austria, no. 12886/16, § 48, 20 July 2021, in which complaints about the treatment of the applicants' relatives' bodies were examined under Article 8 of the Convention; and, in contrast, Akpinar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007, in which a complaint about the mutilation of the applicants' relatives' bodies was examined under Article 3 of the Convention), the Court, as master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), considers that the complaints raised by the applicant should be addressed under Article 8 of the Convention alone.
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 28336/12

  AYGÜN c. BELGIQUE

  Elle est parvenue à une même conclusion à propos d'un refus de restituer aux requérants les corps de leurs proches et leur inhumation en un lieu inconnu (Sabanchiyeva et autres c. Russie, no 38450/05, §§ 117-123, CEDH 2013 (extraits), et Maskhadova et autres c. Russie, no 18071/05, § 212, 6 juin 2013).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07

  ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law, see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, §§ 33-37 and 65-90, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, §§ 116-146, 6 June 2013.
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law, see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, §§ 33-37 and 65-90, ECHR 2013 (extracts) and Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, §§ 116-146, 6 June 2013.
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 64406/09

  GÜLBAHAR ÖZER AND YUSUF ÖZER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 38552/05

  ABDULAYEVA v. RUSSIA