Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUTSOLGOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  Insofar as the applicants' submissions under Article 13 concerned their complaint about the alleged ill-treatment of Bashir Mutsolgov and the related investigation, the Court reiterates that, according to its constant case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).

  In view of the Court's findings above with regard to Article 2, this complaint is clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, 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 Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

  The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' relative were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation was subjected to the required level of public scrutiny, and to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).

 
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  They relied in this connection on the cases of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-203, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  The Court reiterates that allegations of ill-treatment must be supported by appropriate evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 30, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or was otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  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 ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  In this connection the Court reiterates that in a number of cases concerning disappearances of persons in the Chechen Republic it has repeatedly held that when a person is detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening (see, among many other authorities, Bazorkina and Imakayeva, both cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has already 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)).
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

  BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  In this connection the Court reiterates that in a number of cases concerning disappearances of persons in the Chechen Republic it has repeatedly held that when a person is detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening (see, among many other authorities, Bazorkina and Imakayeva, both cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  OSMANOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  30613/05 and 30615/05, 11 February 2010, for the events in Chechnya; Khatuyeva v. Russia, no. 12463/05, 22 April 2010; Mutsolgova and Others v. Russia, no. 2952/06, 1 April 2010; and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, 5 July 2011 for the events in Ingushetia).
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  YANDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Keeping in mind its findings in the case of Aslakhanova and Others (cited above, §§ 220-38) concerning the systemic problem of ineffective investigations into disappearances in the region at the material time, along with its findings in a number of similar cases in which it has decided, with reference to its established principles, that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent Government to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order with a view to discharging their legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Mutsolgova and Others v. Russia, no. 2952/06, § 168, 1 April 2010 and Sultygov and Others, cited above, § 504), the Court does not see any exceptional circumstances which would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 59297/12

  M.G. c. BULGARIE

  Il s'agissait notamment de cas de disparitions forcées, de torture et de traitements inhumains et dégradants, ainsi que d'absence d'enquêtes effectives sur les allégations relatives à ces violations (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Bazorkina c. Russie, no 69481/01, 27 juillet 2006, Loulouïev et autres c. Russie, no 69480/01, CEDH 2006-XIII (extraits), Mutsolgova et autres c. Russie, no 2952/06, 1er avril 2010, Shokkarov et autres c. Russie, no 41009/04, 3 mai 2011, et Velkhiyev et autres c. Russie, no 34085/06, 5 juillet 2011).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 47354/07

  UMAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  12713/02 and 28440/03, § 160, 2 October 2008; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009... (extracts); and Mutsolgova and Others v. Russia, no. 2952/06, § 168, 1 April 2010).