Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUTAYEVA AND ISMAILOVA v. RUSSIA

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MUTAYEVA AND ISMAILOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (15)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the identity of the person responsible will risk falling below this standard (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII, and Tanrikulu, cited above, § 109).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is potentially capable of leading to the identification and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible (see Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 257, 30 March 2016).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  In all cases, however, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure any evidence concerning the incident (see, for example, Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109).
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 54765/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  The Court, however, has strong doubts as to whether that remedy would have been effective in the circumstances of the present case for the following reasons: in a number of other cases concerning allegations of abductions perpetrated in the northern Caucuses, the Court has stated that in the investigation of a crime as serious as abduction it would be reasonable to presume that the authorities took all possible measures on their own impetus to establish the whereabouts of the abducted man and to identify the culprits (see, for example, Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 95, 3 May 2012 concerning an abduction in Dagestan in 2009, and Askhabova v. Russia, no. 54765/09, § 159, 18 April 2013 concerning an abduction in Chechnya in 2009); assuming that access to the case file would have provided the applicants with the chance to challenge the suspension of the proceedings (see paragraph 31 above), the investigative steps taken by the authorities afterwards, provided the challenge was successful, would have only recommenced several months after the initiation of the investigation.
• EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  The Court, however, has strong doubts as to whether that remedy would have been effective in the circumstances of the present case for the following reasons: in a number of other cases concerning allegations of abductions perpetrated in the northern Caucuses, the Court has stated that in the investigation of a crime as serious as abduction it would be reasonable to presume that the authorities took all possible measures on their own impetus to establish the whereabouts of the abducted man and to identify the culprits (see, for example, Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 95, 3 May 2012 concerning an abduction in Dagestan in 2009, and Askhabova v. Russia, no. 54765/09, § 159, 18 April 2013 concerning an abduction in Chechnya in 2009); assuming that access to the case file would have provided the applicants with the chance to challenge the suspension of the proceedings (see paragraph 31 above), the investigative steps taken by the authorities afterwards, provided the challenge was successful, would have only recommenced several months after the initiation of the investigation.
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 18407/10

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  Accordingly, it finds that the situation does not disclose a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, as alleged by the applicants (see Shafiyeva, cited above, § 110; Saidova v. Russia, no. 51432/09, § 84, 1 August 2013; and Dobriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 18407/10, § 88, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 51432/09

  SAIDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  Accordingly, it finds that the situation does not disclose a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, as alleged by the applicants (see Shafiyeva, cited above, § 110; Saidova v. Russia, no. 51432/09, § 84, 1 August 2013; and Dobriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 18407/10, § 88, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2 of the Convention, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Avşar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00

  ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 33539/12

  The Court will examine the arguments of the parties in the light of the provisions of the Convention and its relevant practice (for a relevant summary, see Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, §§ 73-74, 12 October 2006).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 63638/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 2546/08

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  It appears that, as a result, the possibility of acquiring another important piece of evidence was lost (compare with Sitnikov, cited above, § 36; Orlov and Others v. Russia, no. 5632/10, § 102, 14 March 2017; and Mutayeva and Ismailova v. Russia, no. 33539/12, § 67, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 44776/09

  [ENG]

  As regards a civil claim for damages, the Court has already found that in the enforced disappearance cases this procedure cannot be regarded as an effective remedy (see, for example, Mutayeva and Ismailova v. Russia, no. 33539/12, § 43, 21 June 2016).
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 54931/18

  INDIRBAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  To sum up, it has not been established to the required standard of proof that State agents were implicated in the disappearance of Mr Chaplayev; nor does the Court consider that the burden of proof can be entirely shifted to the Government (see also Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 71, 3 May 2012; Mutayeva and Ismailova v. Russia, no. 33539/12, § 51, 21 June 2016; and Salikhova and Magomedova v. Russia, no. 63689/13, § 70, 26 January 2016).
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 53284/13

  TURPULKHANOVA v. RUSSIA and 3 other applications

  Having regard to the finding of the violation, the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Mutayeva and Ismailova v. Russia, no. 33539/12, § 78, 21 June 2016, and Salikhova and Magomedova v. Russia, no. 63689/13, § 94, 26 January 2016).
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 18988/16

  SHAYTILAYEVA AND DYSHNEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the finding of a violation, the Court considers that, while the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Mutayeva and Ismailova v. Russia, no. 33539/12, § 78, 21 June 2016, and Salikhova and Magomedova v. Russia, no. 63689/13, § 94, 26 January 2016).