Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to ...

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 37702/06

  MURESAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  According to its current jurisprudence, unlike in cases relating to the trials of civilians (see, for instance, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 113, ECHR 2005-IV, and Maszni v. Romania, no. 59892/00, §§ 53-60, 21 September 2006), there is nothing in the provisions of Article 6 of the Convention which would in principle exclude the determination by military courts of criminal charges against service personnel (see, for instance, Cooper, cited above, § 110, and Muresan v. Romania (dec.), no. 37702/06 § 19, 16 December 2014).
• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  Further relevant provisions of the Constitution concerning the appointment and dismissal of judges and the competence of the High Council of Justice can be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 21722/11, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 21166/02

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The State authorities are also under an obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, among other authorities, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 140, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 107, 29 March 2011; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.

 
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  MIROSHNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The Court would state at the outset that the right to a fair trial, of which the right to a hearing before an independent tribunal is an essential component, holds a prominent place in a democratic society (see, in particular, Miroshnik v. Ukraine, no. 75804/01, § 61, 27 November 2008).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

  MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The Court notes that the practice of using courts staffed wholly or in part by the military to try members of the armed forces is deeply entrenched in the legal systems of many member States (see, for instance, Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 38784/97, § 59, ECHR 2002-I).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 46598/06

  BRANKO TOMASIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 64, 15 January 2009 with further references).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  ZGONNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The question whether the applicant received reparation for the damage caused - a matter comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention - is important in that sense (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 31, 20 February 2014; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, § 93, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The State authorities are also under an obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, among other authorities, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 140, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 107, 29 March 2011; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The State authorities are also under an obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, among other authorities, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 140, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 107, 29 March 2011; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  What is decisive is whether the party's doubts can be held to be objectively justified (see, mutatis mutandis, Incal v. Turkey, judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports 1998-IV, pp. 1572-73, § 71; Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, § 104, ECHR 2003-XII; and Miroshnik, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  SIZAREV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  FIRSTOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 17423/05

  KOLYADENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 40429/08

  PRILUTSKIY v. UKRAINE

• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10

  SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Without knowledge of such crucial facts, it is impossible to assess properly the applicant's claim that the respondent State should be held responsible for the alleged breach of the traffic regulations on account of either negligent or deliberate conduct on the part of the AMV driver, who was either a military or police officer at the material time (see paragraph 14 above; contrast Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, §§ 125 and 129, 1 September 2016, and Kotelnikov v. Russia, no. 45104/05, §§ 93 and 94, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 29874/18

  HANGANU ET GADALEAN c. ROUMANIE

  Les principes généraux applicables à l'espèce sont résumés dans l'arrêt Mikhno c. Ukraine (no 32514/12, §§ 131-134, 1er septembre 2016).

 
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  SAN v. TURKEY

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 45240/09

  DOROGYKH v. UKRAINE

  In the present case, the Court considers that the applicant did not submit sufficient information in support of her complaint of excessive length of the criminal proceedings, assuming Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil limb was applicable ratione materiae (see, see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 62-66 and 74-75, ECHR 2004-I, and Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 157, 1 September 2016).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 22879/10

  UYKUR v. TURKEY

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez, cited above, § 70, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 47021/10

  ÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Although this obligation may require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in certain special circumstances (see, for instance, Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 93-96; Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, §§ 104-106, ECHR 2013; Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 50 and 65, 4 February 2014; Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016; Aydogdu v. Turkey, no. 40448/06, §§ 62-64 and §§ 87-88, 30 August 2016; and Gençarslan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62609/12, §§ 19-22, 14 March 2017), the Court stresses that neither Article 2 nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees an applicant a right to secure the prosecution and conviction of a third party or a right to "private revenge" (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I, and Öneryildiz, cited above, § 147).