Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+8, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life Respect for private life) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  LEANDER c. SUÈDE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  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, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  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, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  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, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  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, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  30562/04 and 30566/04, § 101, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 13.05.1980 - 6694/74

  ARTICO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  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, 12.09.2012 - 10593/08

  Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens und Recht auf Beschwerde; Verhältnis zwischen …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  Thus, in order to ensure "respect" for private and family life within the meaning of Article 8, the realities of each case must be taken into account in order to avoid the mechanical application of domestic law to a particular situation (see, as a recent authority, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, §§ 181-186, 12 September 2012).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  Finally, the Court reiterates its established case-law according to which allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  The Court would note, firstly, that the present case is different from the cases brought before the Court by family members of the victims of "disappearances" or extra-judicial killings committed by the security forces (see, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, §§ 116-118, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

  SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  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, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 30.10.2001 - 37794/97

  PANNULLO ET FORTE c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  MASKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 9390/05

  ALEKSANDRA DMITRIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2004 - 23656/94

  AYDER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 30949/96

  YASIN ATES v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 26973/95

  YÖYLER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  BITIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 41318/10

  GATSALOVA v. RUSSIA

  The facts of the case are for the most part identical to those described in the Court's judgments in Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 38450/05, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014) and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014), and may be summarised as follows.

  The Court further notes that that judgment, as well as the judgments in Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014), and Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014), concerned the same attack that took place in Nalchik on 13 October 2005 and the events that followed, and that the applicants in those cases raised similar complaints under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the domestic authorities" refusal to return the bodies of their deceased relatives pursuant to the decision of 15 May 2006.

  The majority's decision not to carry out a separate examination of the Article 9 complaint follows the approach adopted in previous cases concerning substantially the same events, in which the Court examined the Russian authorities" refusal to return the bodies of the applicants" relatives under Article 8. The Article 9 complaints based on the same grounds were, in effect, subsumed under the Article 8 examination (see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 158, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Arkhestov and Others v. Russia, no. 22089/07, § 114, 16 January 2014; and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia, no. 7988/09, § 108, 16 January 2014).

• EGMR, 19.01.2021 - 12981/15

  TASHUYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court further notes that the cited judgment, as well as the judgments in the cases of Zalov and Khakulova, no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014 and Arkhestov and Others, no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014, concerned the terrorist attacks in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya, and that the applicants in the cited cases raised similar complaints under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the domestic authorities" refusal to return the bodies of their deceased relatives.