Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UDAYEVA AND YUSUPOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

  The latter approach is exercised by the Court in view of the continuous nature of the psychological suffering of the applicants whose relatives disappeared and the applicants' inability for a prolonged period of time to find out what happened to them (see, among many other authorities, Bazorkina, cited above, § 141; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 166, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  The latter approach is exercised by the Court in view of the continuous nature of the psychological suffering of the applicants whose relatives disappeared and the applicants' inability for a prolonged period of time to find out what happened to them (see, among many other authorities, Bazorkina, cited above, § 141; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 166, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄŸcu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  The Court has found the Russian military responsible for deaths of civilians in the Chechen Republic in a number of cases (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 200, 24 February 2005 and Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 201, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  SHAIPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  Having regard to the findings of a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect (see paragraph 69 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Khumaydov and Khumaydov v. Russia, no. 13862/05, § 141, 28 May 2009; Zakriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 20583/04, § 108, 8 January 2009; and Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  KHUMAYDOV AND KHUMAYDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  Having regard to the findings of a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect (see paragraph 69 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Khumaydov and Khumaydov v. Russia, no. 13862/05, § 141, 28 May 2009; Zakriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 20583/04, § 108, 8 January 2009; and Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 20583/04

  ZAKRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  Having regard to the findings of a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect (see paragraph 69 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see Khumaydov and Khumaydov v. Russia, no. 13862/05, § 141, 28 May 2009; Zakriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 20583/04, § 108, 8 January 2009; and Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 30949/96

  YASIN ATES v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  In this regard, the Court refers to its practice by which the application of Article 3 is usually not extended to the relatives of persons who have been killed by the authorities in violation of Article 2 (see Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005) or to cases of unjustified use of lethal force by State agents (see Isayeva and Others, cited above, § 229), as opposed to the relatives of the victims of enforced disappearances.
• EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 37542/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  The Court finds that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is inapplicable to the proceedings in question, as they did not involve the determination of the applicants' civil rights or obligations or a criminal charge against them within the meaning of the Convention (see, for example, Magomadova v. Russia, no. 2393/05, § 163, 18 June 2009, and Abayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 37542/05, § 126, 8 April 2010).
• EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  It thus finds that this complaint has not been substantiated (see, for example, Suleymanova v. Russia, no. 9191/06, §§ 106-108, 12 May 2010).
• EGMR, 18.06.2009 - 2393/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00

  ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69481/01

  BAZORKINA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 5108/02

  KHATSIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.01.2021 - 38263/08

  Russland für Menschenrechtsverstöße nach Südkaukasuskrieg verurteilt - Russland …

  [99] Compare and contrast Ergi, cited above, § 79, with Nakayev v. Russia, no. 29846/05, § 80, 21 June 2011, and Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, § 78, 21 December 2010.
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  [ENG]

  On the other hand, in cases of persons who have been killed by the authorities in violation of Article 2, the Court has held that the application of Article 3 is usually not extended to the relatives on account of the instantaneous nature of the incident causing the death in question (see Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, § 82, 21 December 2010; Khashuyeva v. Russia, no. 25553/07, § 154, 19 July 2011; and Inderbiyeva v. Russia, no. 56765/08, § 110, 27 March 2012).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 3340/08

  ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In a number of cases the Court has already found that while there was no doubt that a similar situation had caused the applicants profound distress and anxiety, taking into account the short time frame between the abduction and the death, it did not raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, §§ 82-83, 21 December 2010; Inderbiyeva v. Russia, no. 56765/08, §§ 110-11, 27 March 2012; and Kosumova v. Russia, no. 2527/09, §§ 100-01, 16 October 2014).

• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 21129/09

  BANZHAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Conversely, if the applicants failed to make out a prima facie case, the burden of proof could not be reversed (see, for example, Abdurashidova v. Russia, no. 32968/05, §§ 71-72, 8 April 2010, and Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, § 79, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 25553/07

  [ENG]

  It therefore follows that this part of application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (see Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, §§ 82-83, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 05.02.2019 - 4635/08

  [ENG]

  Conversely, if the applicants failed to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof could not be reversed (see, for example, Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 158-59, 8 January 2009; Abdurashidova v. Russia, no. 32968/05, §§ 71-72, 8 April 2010; and Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, § 79, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen

  Conversely, where applicants fail to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof cannot be reversed (see, for example, Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 71, 3 May 2012, and Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, § 78, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 19650/11

  DAGALAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Conversely, if the applicants failed to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof could not be reversed (see, for example, Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 158-159, 8 January 2009; Abdurashidova v. Russia, no. 32968/05, §§ 71-72, 8 April 2010; and Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, § 79, 21 December 2010).
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 2527/09

  [ENG]

  The latter approach is exercised by the Court in view of the continuous nature of the psychological suffering of the applicants whose relatives disappeared and the applicants" inability for a prolonged period of time to find out what happened to them (see Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, §§ 82-83, 21 December 2010, with further references).
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 56765/08

  [ENG]

  As for the present case, even though the Court does not doubt that the tragic death of her sisters caused the applicant profound suffering, it nonetheless, owing to the instantaneous nature of the incident, does not find that it amounts to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for a similar situation, Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, §§ 82-83, 21 December 2010).