Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McSHANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 6-1 No violation of Art. 14 No violation of Art. 13 Failure to comply with obligations under Art. 34 (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 43290/98
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, e.g. Salman v. Turkey cited above, § 106; concerning witnesses e.g. Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; concerning forensic evidence e.g. Gül v. Turkey, 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see the Yasa v. Turkey judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 2439-2440, §§ 102-104; Cakıcı v. Turkey cited above, §§ 80, 87 and 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey, cited above, § 109; Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, [Section I] ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC] no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 100, and also Çakıcı v. Turkey, [GC] ECHR 1999-IV, § 85, Ertak v. Turkey no. 20764/92 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-V, § 32 and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-VI, § 82).
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, e.g. Salman v. Turkey cited above, § 106; concerning witnesses e.g. Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; concerning forensic evidence e.g. Gül v. Turkey, 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89).

• EGMR, 25.01.2022 - 28864/18

  GRIBBEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Relevant Committee of Ministers Resolutions 93. In addition to its earlier judgment in the present case (McCaughey and Others, cited above), the Court has adopted seven other judgments concerning the investigation of killings by security forces in Northern Ireland between 1968 and 1998 (see Hugh Jordan, cited above; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, 4 May 2001; Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, 28 May 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, ECHR 2003-VIII; and Hemsworth v. the United Kingdom, no. 58559/09, 16 July 2013).

  As already indicated, the Court would normally assess compliance with the duty to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention by carrying out a global assessment of all the investigatory steps that have been taken and, indeed, this was the approach taken in Hugh Jordan, McKerr, Kelly and Others (all cited above), Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, 4 May 2001, McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, 28 May 2002, and Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, ECHR 2003-VIII. It is clear from the Court's judgment in McCaughey and Others that the applicants had expressly complained about the entirely of the investigative steps taken, including the investigation by the RUC and the decisions taken by the DPP (see McCaughey and Others, cited above, §§ 105-106).

• EGMR, 07.02.2006 - 41773/98

  SCAVUZZO-HAGER ET AUTRES c. SUISSE

  En tant que telles, elles ne peuvent pas être prises en compte dans l'examen du respect des obligations procédurales de l'Etat au titre de l'article 2 de la Convention (Hugh Jordan, précité, § 141, McShane c. Royaume-Uni, no 43290/98, § 125, 28 mai 2002).
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 23458/02

  GIULIANI c. ITALIE

  L'enquête requise par les articles 2 et 13 de la Convention doit être propre à conduire à l'identification et au châtiment des responsables (McKerr c. Royaume-Uni, no 28883/95, § 121, CEDH 2001-III ; Hugh Jordan c. Royaume-Uni, no 24746/94, § 115, CEDH 2001-III (extraits) ; Kelly et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 30054/96, § 105, 4 mai 2001 ; McShane c. Royaume-Uni, no 43290/98, § 125).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 27610/05

  TANGIYEV v. RUSSIA

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu, cited above, § 130).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  TAUTKUS v. LITHUANIA

  We stress that it would be inappropriate and contrary to the Court's subsidiary role under the Convention for it to attempt to establish the facts of this case on its own, duplicating the efforts of the domestic authorities, which are better placed and equipped for that purpose (see, for example, McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 103, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 14.01.2010 - 11020/03

  SHUGAYEV v. RUSSIA

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 11.10.2016 - 19857/09

  URMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 923/03

  YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; and Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006).
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  ALPATU ISRAILOVA v. RUSSIA

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; and Nurmagomedov v. Russia, no. 30138/02, § 6, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 20.05.2003 - 10231/02

  ZAMULA and OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  McSHANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Admissible (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 43290/98
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 43290/98

  As regards the procedural requirement that the State carry out an effective investigation into deaths caused by its agents (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 18984/91, § 161, ECHR 1995-III), the parties differ as to the scope of the obligation and, in particular, as to whether civil proceedings are of any relevance depending as they do on the initiative of the deceased's relatives who have to establish their claims to a certain standard of proof.
• EGMR, 18.12.1996 - 21987/93

  AKSOY c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 43290/98

  Article 35 § 1 also requires that the complaints intended to be brought subsequently before the Court should have been made to the appropriate domestic body, at least in substance and in compliance with the formal requirements laid down in domestic law, but not that recourse should be had to remedies which are inadequate or ineffective (see Aksoy v. Turkey, no. 21987/93, §§ 51-52, ECHR 1996-VI, and Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, no. 21893/93, §§ 65-67, ECHR 1996-IV).
• EGMR, 02.09.1998 - 22495/93

  YASA c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.12.2000 - 43290/98

  (see amongst other cases Yasa v. Turkey, no. 22495/93, § 74, ECHR 1998-IV, p. 2431, § 74).