Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08, 64941/09, 44279/10, 52270/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SALA KHAMIDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (10)
- EGMR - 64941/09 (anhängig)
ASPIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
Aspiyev and Others v. Russia (application no. 64941/09) 16. The applicants are twenty-six Russian nationals.PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 82. In the application of Aspiyev and Others (no. 64941/09), the Government disputed the standing of Ms Kazban Tsuroyeva, the wife of late Mr Magomet Tsuroyev, and Mr Adam Nalgiyev, the son of late Mr Ramazan Nalgiyev (see paragraphs 40 and 41 above), arguing that the applicants' complaints concerned non-transferable rights, and thus invited the Court to strike their application out.
Aspiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 64941/09) (a) Compliance with the six-month rule and exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Alleged ill-treatment 101. The Court observes that there is sufficient evidence indicating the State officers' involvement in the apprehension of applicants Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10), and Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) (see paragraphs 5, 47 and 74 above), and in the special operation carried out in the village of Ali-Yurt in the application Aspiyev and Others (no. 64941/09) (see paragraph 28 above).
In application no. 64941/09 applicants Mr Khuseyn Nalgiyev, Mr Magomet Nalgiyev, Mr Umalat Nalgiyev, Ms Aset Nalgiyeva, Mr Yakhya Yevloyev, Mr Ibragim Yevloyev, Mr Zalimkhan Yevloyev and Mr Vakha Dobriyev did not provide medical evidence of their alleged injuries (see paragraphs 22 and 23 above).
In the application of Aspiyev and Others (no. 64941/09) the investigation authorities and the domestic courts enlisted a number of law-enforcement agencies responsible for the operation (see paragraphs 31, 36 and 38 above).
In view of the severity of the ill-treatment and the consequences for the applicants' health, the State officers subjected the following applicants to torture: Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10), Mr Timerlan Aspiyev, Mr Issa Batsayev, Ms Tanzila Esmurziyeva, and Mr Umar Yevloyev (no. 64941/09).
The State officers subjected the following applicants to inhuman or degrading treatment: Mr Magomet-Girey Aspiyev, Mr Batyr Dzeytov, Mr Akramat Tatriyev, Mr Temirkhan Tatriyev, Mr Isa Tsoroyev, Mr Yusup Tsoroyev, Mr Magomet Tsuroyev, Mr Isa Yevloyev, Mr Magomed Belanovich Yevloyev, Mr Magomet Khusenovich Yevloyev, Mr Musa Yevloyev, Mr Muslim Yevloyev, Ms Rukiyat Yevloyeva (no. 64941/09).
The Court also considers that the applicants who had not obtained any medical documents, namely Mr Khuseyn Nalgiyev, Mr Magomet Nalgiyev, Mr Umalat Nalgiyev, Ms Aset Nalgiyeva, Mr Yakhya Yevloyev, Mr Ibragim Yevloyev, Mr Zalimkhan Yevloyev and Mr Vakha Dobriyev (no. 64941/09) had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, as alleged by them.
Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike out the complaint of Mr Ramazan Nalgiyev (no. 64941/09) under Article 3 of the Convention out of its list; Declares the complaint of Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) under Article 8 of the Convention about the alleged unlawful search inadmissible, and the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in that the applicants indicated in paragraph 108 above were subjected to torture by State officers, the applicants indicated in paragraph 109 above were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by State officers, and that no effective investigation into their complaints was carried out by the authorities; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10) on account of their unrecorded detention; Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendices I and II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;.
64941/09.
List of applicants in the case of Aspiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 64941/09):.
- EGMR - 52270/10 (anhängig)
TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
the decision to reject the Government's objection to examination of application Tsechoyev v. Russia (no. 52270/10) by a Committee;.Tsechoyev v. Russia (application no. 52270/10) Background information 63. In March 2004 the applicant's brother, Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev, disappeared following his arrest by Ingushetia FSB officers (see Ozdoyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 9782/08 and 9 others, 27 August 2019).
Alleged ill-treatment 101. The Court observes that there is sufficient evidence indicating the State officers' involvement in the apprehension of applicants Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10), and Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) (see paragraphs 5, 47 and 74 above), and in the special operation carried out in the village of Ali-Yurt in the application Aspiyev and Others (no. 64941/09) (see paragraph 28 above).
The same applies to the cases of Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) and Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10).
In view of the severity of the ill-treatment and the consequences for the applicants' health, the State officers subjected the following applicants to torture: Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10), Mr Timerlan Aspiyev, Mr Issa Batsayev, Ms Tanzila Esmurziyeva, and Mr Umar Yevloyev (no. 64941/09).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 112. Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10) complained about their unrecorded detention by State officers under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10).
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION 116. Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) complained under Article 8 of the Convention of unlawful searches carried out by State officers and the lack of effective domestic remedies in that respect.
Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) also claimed compensation for pecuniary damage arguing that due to the alleged persecution by the State officers, he was forced to move to France in 2015.
Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike out the complaint of Mr Ramazan Nalgiyev (no. 64941/09) under Article 3 of the Convention out of its list; Declares the complaint of Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) under Article 8 of the Convention about the alleged unlawful search inadmissible, and the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in that the applicants indicated in paragraph 108 above were subjected to torture by State officers, the applicants indicated in paragraph 109 above were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by State officers, and that no effective investigation into their complaints was carried out by the authorities; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10) on account of their unrecorded detention; Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendices I and II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;.
52270/10.
- EGMR - 44279/10 (anhängig)
AUSHEVY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
Aushevy v. Russia (application no. 44279/10) 43. The applicants are Mr Magomed Osmanovich Aushev (Mr M.O. Aushev) and Mr Magomed Maksharipovich Aushev (Mr M.M. Aushev).Alleged ill-treatment 101. The Court observes that there is sufficient evidence indicating the State officers' involvement in the apprehension of applicants Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10), and Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) (see paragraphs 5, 47 and 74 above), and in the special operation carried out in the village of Ali-Yurt in the application Aspiyev and Others (no. 64941/09) (see paragraph 28 above).
The same applies to the cases of Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) and Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10).
In view of the severity of the ill-treatment and the consequences for the applicants' health, the State officers subjected the following applicants to torture: Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10), Mr Timerlan Aspiyev, Mr Issa Batsayev, Ms Tanzila Esmurziyeva, and Mr Umar Yevloyev (no. 64941/09).
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION 112. Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10) complained about their unrecorded detention by State officers under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:.
There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10).
Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike out the complaint of Mr Ramazan Nalgiyev (no. 64941/09) under Article 3 of the Convention out of its list; Declares the complaint of Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10) under Article 8 of the Convention about the alleged unlawful search inadmissible, and the remainder of the applications admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention under its substantive and procedural limbs in that the applicants indicated in paragraph 108 above were subjected to torture by State officers, the applicants indicated in paragraph 109 above were subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by State officers, and that no effective investigation into their complaints was carried out by the authorities; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of Mr Khamidov (no. 32267/08), Mr Tsechoyev (no. 52270/10), Mr M.O. Aushev and Mr M.M. Aushev (no. 44279/10) on account of their unrecorded detention; Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in Appendices I and II, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;.
44279/10.
- EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 24885/05
VANFULI v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
However, in view of these previous decisions to suspend and reopen the proceedings, the Court is not convinced that another appeal to a court would have been effective (see Vanfuli v. Russia, no. 24885/05, §§ 72-75, 3 November 2011). - EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 38887/09
FARTUSHIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
The Court finds that the applicants' unrecorded detention was a complete negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention, and was incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness and with the very purpose of this Article (see Fartushin v. Russia, no. 38887/09, § 54, 8 October 2015). - EGMR, 04.04.2013 - 12102/05
MARKARYAN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
The domestic court, despite the lack of their formal victim status, after having examined the substance of the applicants' complaint, quashed the investigator's decision (see Markaryan v. Russia, no. 12102/05, § 45, 4 April 2013). - EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09
LYAPIN v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 48-52, 14 November 2013), and Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014). - EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09
Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
As to the standing of Ms Kazban Tsuroyeva, the Court reiterates that in applications concerning Article 3 of the Convention there exists a strong presumption of a legitimate or sufficient interest of an applicant's next of kin in continuing the case (see Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 32631/09 and 53799/12, § 176, 27 August 2019, with further references). - EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 13642/06
RYABTSEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment and the procedure for examining a criminal complaint, see Ryabtsev v. Russia (no. 13642/06, §§ 48-52, 14 November 2013), and Lyapin v. Russia (no. 46956/09, §§ 96-102, 24 July 2014). - EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08
OZDOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
Tsechoyev v. Russia (application no. 52270/10) Background information 63. In March 2004 the applicant's brother, Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev, disappeared following his arrest by Ingushetia FSB officers (see Ozdoyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 9782/08 and 9 others, 27 August 2019).