Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHADISOV AND TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+3, Art. 13+5, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13+3 No violation of Art. 34 Violation of Art. 38-1-a Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 21519/02
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this reference insufficient to justify refusal (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case- law, the applicant may lose the status of "victim" in instances where "the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).

 
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  Furthermore, the investigation must be expedient (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  It has also stated that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of guarantees against arbitrary detention and discloses a very grave violation of Article 5 (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 21519/02

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 64, Reports 1996-VI; Aydın v. Turkey, 25 September 1997, §§ 83-84 and 86, Reports 1997-VI; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 22.12.2015 - 68736/11

  LYKOVA c. RUSSIE

  Se référant à l'arrêt rendu par la Cour dans l'affaire Khadissov et Tsetchoïev c. Russie, no 21519/02, § 148, 5 février 2009, elle expose que pareil manquement représente par lui-même une violation grave, en ce qu'il permet aux responsables d'un acte de privation de liberté de dissimuler leur implication, de brouiller les pistes et d'échapper à leur responsabilité quant au sort de la personne détenue.
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 1484/07

  KAKABADZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  As to the suggested possibility of suing the State for damages for the applicants" allegedly unlawful detention under the Civil Code, the Court reiterates that where lawfulness of detention is concerned, an action for damages is not a relevant remedy, because the right to have the lawfulness of detention examined by a court and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention are two distinct rights (see, among others, Wloch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, § 90, ECHR 2000-XI, and Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 151, 5 February 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Russland wegen brutaler Folter verurteilt

  While the civil courts have the capacity to make an independent assessment of fact, in practice, the weight attached to preliminary criminal enquiries is so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would often be dismissed as "irrelevant" (see Chitayev and Chitayev, cited above, § 202; Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 160, 5 February 2009; and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 45797/09

  ZAICHENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)

  The Court has held in its case-law that where the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty is concerned, an action for damages against the State is not a remedy which has to be used, because the right not to be deprived of one's liberty "save in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and the right to obtain compensation for any deprivation of liberty incompatible with Article 5 are two separate rights (see, inter alia, Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 151, 5 February 2009; Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 49, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, § 62, 17 December 2013).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 23559/07

  OLEYNIK c. RUSSIE

  - que, bien au contraire, si l'on se réfère à l'arrêt rendu par la Cour dans l'affaire Khadissov et Tsetchoïev c. Russie (no 21519/02, § 148, 5 février 2009), pareille absence représente par elle-même une violation grave, en ce qu'elle est de nature à permettre aux responsables d'un acte de privation de liberté de dissimuler leur implication, de brouiller les pistes et d'échapper à leur responsabilité quant au sort de la personne détenue ;.