Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06, 36285/06, 36290/06, 36311/06   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,26527
EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06, 36285/06, 36290/06, 36311/06 (https://dejure.org/2016,26527)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01.09.2016 - 36314/06, 36285/06, 36290/06, 36311/06 (https://dejure.org/2016,26527)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 01. September 2016 - 36314/06, 36285/06, 36290/06, 36311/06 (https://dejure.org/2016,26527)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,26527) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

  • EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 37702/06

    MURESAN v. ROMANIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    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, 15.01.2009 - 46598/06

    BRANKO TOMASIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    Disciplinary measures may also be envisaged (see Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, § 64, 15 January 2009 with further references).
  • EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

    SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    The Court notes, firstly, that, insofar as the applicants complain about the organisation of the identification procedure and handling of their relatives" bodies, any organizational lapses in these procedures, which might have resulted from objective logistical difficulties connected to the extraordinary nature of the events and the number of casualties, may not by themselves attract applicability of Article 3, absent any evidence that the authorities engaged in misconduct, which caused the applicants suffering of a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress inevitably caused to any family member of a deceased person in a comparable situation (see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, §§ 112-113, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

    MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    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, 13.03.2014 - 63727/11

    ANDREY YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    As the applicants did not notify the competent domestic authorities of any respective concerns, the Court, without the benefit of the comments from these authorities, has no basis on which to establish that any such misconduct might have taken place (see, in particular, Vinokurov v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.) no. 2937/04, 16/10/2007 and Andrey Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 63727/11, § 85, 13 March 2014).
  • EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

    ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    These requirements also extend to the trial stage (see Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 58, 17 June 2008, and Mosendz, cited above, § 94).
  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

    MIROSHNIK v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    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, 26.02.2015 - 40429/08

    PRILUTSKIY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    For a positive obligation to protect life to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and that, if so, they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see, amongst other authorities, Finogenov and Others v. Russia, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, § 209, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Banel v. Lithuania, no. 14326/11, § 65, 18 June 2013; and Prilutskiy v. Ukraine, no. 40429/08, § 33, 26 February 2015).
  • EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

    COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    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, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

    FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 36314/06
    The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities, and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
  • EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

    OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

    ZGONNIK v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

    FIRSTOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

    SIZAREV v. UKRAINE

  • EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17

    NIKA v. ALBANIA

    However, it is not the Court's task to compare the quality of the relevant legal framework before and after the events at issue in abstracto (compare Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 36314/06 and 3 others, § 132, 1 September 2016).
  • EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 25018/13

    BAYINDIR INSAAT TURIZM TICARET VE SANAYI A.S. v. TURKEY

    In the Court's view, regard being had to the criteria established in its jurisprudence (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII) and the nature and complexity of the particular proceedings at issue in the present case, the aforementioned period was not such as to attract the liability of the respondent Government under the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 36314/06 and 3 others, §§ 186-187, 1 September 2016).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht