Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SARBYANOVA-PASHALIYSKA AND PASHALIYSKA V. BULGARIA

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 13+2-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SARBYANOVA AND PASHALIYSKA v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

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

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.09.1978 - 5029/71

  Klass u.a. ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  Notwithstanding the terms of Article 13 read literally, the existence of an actual breach of another "substantive" provision of the Convention is not a prerequisite for the application of the Article (see the Klass and Others judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, § 64; see also the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
• EGMR, 08.07.1986 - 9006/80

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  Article 13 guarantees the availability of a remedy at national level to enforce - and hence to allege non-compliance with - the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order (see the Lithgow and Others judgment of 8 July 1986, Series A no. 102, p. 74, § 205, and the authorities cited there).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  The Court next notes that the relevant general principles governing the obligations of the State in cases where an individual's life has been taken not by a State agent but by a third party have been summarised in the cases, inter alia, of Paul and Audrey Edwards v. United Kingdom (no. 46477/99, § 86, ECH 2002-II), Mulini v. Bulgaria (no. 2092/08, §§ 40-43, 20 October 2015), and Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria (no. 55523/00, §§ 93-97, 26 July 2007).

• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  Similarly, in the case of Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, §§ 123-125, 18 December 2012), a conclusion of a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 was reached by the Court because the criminal proceedings had been plagued by a combination of defects, which included various delays and periods of inactivity along with a failure to take vital investigative steps, belated granting of victim status to the relatives, failure to involve relevant authorities in the proceedings, all of which had led to the inability to establish the perpetrators.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  Notwithstanding the terms of Article 13 read literally, the existence of an actual breach of another "substantive" provision of the Convention is not a prerequisite for the application of the Article (see the Klass and Others judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 29, § 64; see also the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  As the Court has held in previous cases, that [the finding of no violation of Article 2] does not preclude the complaint in relation to Article 2 from being an "arguable" one for the purposes of Article 13 (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 118, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  It must therefore subject allegations of breach of this provision to the most careful scrutiny (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 93, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  This resulted in the investigation lasting for over three years before the case was brought to court (contrast with Mulini, cited above, § 48, with S.Z. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 49, and with Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 50, 3 November 2011 - the investigations examined in these cases lasted respectively for over five years, for eight years and for over twelve years).
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 29263/12

  S.Z. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  In such cases the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must satisfy the requirements of this provision of the Convention (see, in the context of the prohibition of ill-treatment, Çelik v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 39326/02, § 34, 27 May 2010; W. v. Slovenia, no. 24125/06, § 65, 23 January 2014; and, S.Z. v. Bulgaria, no. 29263/12, § 44, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 18.06.2013 - 6194/11

  VALCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 1 other application

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 3524/14

  6194/11 and 34887/11, § 98, 18 June 2013) the Court found that, taken together, an application for compensation under sections 60a et seq.
• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 39326/02

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  ANNA TODOROVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 2092/08

  MULINI v. BULGARIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 15086/07

  Mord an Journalistin: Russland wegen Politkowskaja-Ermittlungen verurteilt

  While this requirement under Article 2 should not be examined in isolation and irrespective of the other parameters, the combination of which makes an investigation effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska, no. 3524/14, § 41, 12 January 2017, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 225), the Court has recently observed, in the context of an Article 2 case concerning the proceedings instituted to elucidate the circumstances of an individual's death in a hospital setting, that the lengthiness of proceedings is a strong indication that the proceedings were defective to the point of constituting a violation of the respondent State's positive obligations under the Convention, unless the State has provided highly convincing and plausible reasons to justify the length of the proceedings (see, with further references, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, cited above, § 219).

  The investigation identified both the cause of the victim's death and the persons directly responsible for the killing (compare Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria, no. 3524/14, § 42, 12 January 2017).

• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 23022/13

  D.M.D. v. ROMANIA

  As pointed out in its case-law, albeit from the standpoint of Article 2, the requirement of promptness should not be examined in isolation and irrespective of the other parameters, the combination of which makes an investigation effective (see, mutatis mutandis, Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria, no. 3524/14, § 41, 12 January 2017).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 29729/09

  [ENG]

  By way of comparison, the Court reiterates that it is normally possible for family members or relatives of a deceased victim to lodge a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with its Article 2 on account of the alleged unavailability of a remedy affording monetary redress (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 148, ECHR 2004-XII, and Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria, no. 3524/14, § 52, 12 January 2017); they may also obtain just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained on account of the violation of Article 2 (see Nagmetov, cited above, § 92).

• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 24129/11

  RADU AND RADU-CIUPERCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  The Court recalls that where delays in the investigation of ill-treatment do not, of themselves, "interfere with the investigation to an extent impeding its effectiveness" (see Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria, no. 3524/14, § 43, 12 January 2017), no violation of Article 2 or 3 is to be found.
• EGMR, 12.05.2020 - 48395/16

  DANCIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  In such cases the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must satisfy the requirements of this provision of the Convention (see Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria, no. 3524/14, § 38, 12 January 2017).
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 47711/19

  KUTSAROVI c. BULGARIE

  C'est à l'aune de cet objectif d'effectivité de l'enquête que toute question doit être appréciée (Mustafa Tunç et Fecire Tunç c. Turquie [GC], no 24014/05, § 225, 14 avril 2015 ; Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska et Pashaliyska c. Bulgarie, no 3524/14, §§ 41-43, 12 janvier 2017).
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 10544/17

  TUMÄ-NIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  In such cases, the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must satisfy the requirements of this provision of the Convention (see Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria, no. 3524/14, § 38, 12 January 2017, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 68490/14

  NATALIA LUNGU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Le fait que le tribunal de première instance ait jugé les deux accusés coupables de coups et blessures légers, et qu'il leur ait appliqué des peines d'emprisonnement avec sursis n'a pas eu un impact négatif sur la qualité des résultats de la procédure pénale, notamment sur la capacité des instances hiérarchiques à élucider l'affaire (comparer avec Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska et Pashaliyska c. Bulgarie, no 3524/14, §§ 42-43, 12 janvier 2017, et Dub (déc.), précitée, § 32).
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 43800/15

  CHAYKA v. UKRAINE

  In support of their position they relied on the Court's judgment in the case of Sarbyanova-Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria (no. 3524/14, 12 January 2017).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 35523/06

  ISAYEVA v. UKRAINE

  Moreover, the lengthy consideration of the applicant's claims does not, in itself, automatically entail a breach of the State's positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis and in respect of procedural obligations under Article 2, Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 225, 14 April 2015, and Sarbyanova Pashaliyska and Pashaliyska v. Bulgaria, no. 3524/14, § 37, 12 January 2017).
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 28416/14

  KLOBUCAR v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 05.06.2018 - 39374/09

  DUB c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA