Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SULEYMANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 13+2, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 13+2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (13)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  In particular, the authorities must take 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, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  Bearing in mind the difficulties in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources, the obligation to protect the right to life must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis, cited above, § 69, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 86, ECHR 2000-III).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  In particular, the authorities must take 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, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  In particular, the authorities must take 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, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  In this connection, the Court notes firstly that it is aware of the difficult situation in the Chechen Republic at the material time, which called for exceptional measures on the part of the State to suppress the illegal armed insurgency (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 178, 24 February 2005, or Khatsiyeva and Others, cited above, § 134).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, particularly where deliberate lethal force is used, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-50, Series A no. 324,; Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, 9 October 1997, pp. 2097-98, § 171, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; and OÄŸur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 78, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  In addition to setting out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, Article 2 implies a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place an appropriate legal and administrative framework defining the limited circumstances in which law enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the light of the relevant international standards (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-XI, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  As regards a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained through the alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents, the Court has already found in a number of similar cases that this procedure alone cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, §§ 119-121, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others, cited above, § 77).
• EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00

  ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2010 - 9191/06

  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, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 5108/02

  KHATSIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  [ENG]

  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, 04.02.2020 - 56120/13

  BAYSULTANOV v. RUSSIA

  It cannot conclude that the use of such force by service personnel was based on an honest belief which was perceived, for good reasons, to be valid at the time (see Akhmadov and Others v. Russia, no. 21586/02, § 101, 14 November 2008, and Suleymanova v. Russia, no. 9191/06, § 85, 12 May 2010; see, by contrast, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 200, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  [ENG]

  The Court has also examined a number of cases concerning the use of force - firearms or heavier weapons such as grenades, artillery rounds, and aerial bombs or missiles - by military forces (see Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 70-73, Reports 1998-IV; Ergi v. Turkey, 28 July 1998, §§ 79-81, Reports 1998-IV; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 174-200, 24 February 2005; Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, §§ 179-201, 24 February 2005; Anık and Others v. Turkey, no. 63758/00, §§ 55-67, 5 June 2007; Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 5108/02, §§ 130-40, 17 January 2008; Akhmadov and Others v. Russia, no. 21586/02, §§ 98-103, 14 November 2008; Suleymanova v. Russia, no. 9191/06, §§ 78-87, 12 May 2010; Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, §§ 196-203, 2 December 2010; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 140-51, 29 March 2011; Kerimova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 47222/07

  [ENG]

  The Court further observes that a situation concerning alleged deprivation of life by military servicemen in Chechnya at the material time has been the subject of its examination on a number of occasions (see, amongst many examples, Khashuyeva v. Russia, no. 25553/07, §§ 148-52, 19 July 2011; Suleymanova v. Russia, no. 9191/06, §§ 95-99, 12 May 2010; and Abakarova, cited above, §§ 109-14).