Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 13+2 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  As the Court's judgments are essentially declaratory, the respondent State remains free, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; and Viasu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, § 79, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; and Viasu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, § 79, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 29361/02

  KUKAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  In other exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008, and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 239, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 75951/01

  VIASU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; and Viasu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, § 79, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  NARIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

• EGMR, 16.01.2024 - 6383/17

  AL-HAWSAWI v. LITHUANIA

  The Court notes that on the basis of the elements in the case file, including the findings of the 2014 US Senate Committee Report in respect of Detention Site Violet, there appear to be no insurmountable practical obstacles to the hitherto lacking effective investigation being carried out in this manner (see, mutatis mutandis, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, §§ 240-41, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 12.12.2023 - 34323/21

  STEFAN-GABRIEL MOCANU c. ROUMANIE

  Il est toutefois possible que, dans des cas exceptionnels, la nature même de la violation constatée n'offre pas réellement de choix parmi différentes sortes de mesures susceptibles d'y remédier et que la Cour soit conduite à indiquer exclusivement l'une de ces mesures (Assanidzé c. Géorgie [GC], no 71503/01, § 202, CEDH 2004-II, et Abuyeva et autres c. Russie, no 27065/05, § 237, 2 décembre 2010).
• EGMR, 10.12.2013 - 13660/05

  TEKÇI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Il est possible que, dans d'autres cas exceptionnels, la nature même de la violation constatée n'offre pas réellement de choix parmi différentes sortes de mesures susceptibles d'y remédier et que la Cour soit conduite à indiquer exclusivement l'une de ces mesures (Assanidzé, précité, § 202, Abuyeva et autres c. Russie, no 27065/05, § 237, 2 décembre 2010).

 
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  L'État défendeur reste libre, sous le contrôle du Comité des Ministres, de choisir les moyens de s'acquitter de son obligation juridique au regard de l'article 46 de la Convention pour autant que ces moyens soient compatibles avec les conclusions contenues dans l'arrêt de la Cour (Scozzari et Giunta c. Italie [GC], nos 39221/98 et 41963/98, § 249, CEDH 2000-VIII, Broniowski c. Pologne [GC], no 31443/96, § 192, CEDH 2004-V, Lukenda c. Slovénie, no 23032/02, §§ 89-98, CEDH 2005-X, Apostol c. Géorgie, no 40765/02, §§ 70-71, CEDH 2006-XIV, Abuyeva et autres c. Russie, no 27065/05, §§ 235-243, 2 décembre 2010).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 24604/04

  NIHAYET ARICI ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle que ses arrêts ont un caractère déclaratoire pour l'essentiel et qu'en général, il appartient au premier chef à l'Etat en cause, sous le contrôle du Comité des Ministres, de choisir les moyens à utiliser dans son ordre juridique interne pour s'acquitter de son obligation au regard de l'article 46 de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Abuyeva et autres c. Russie, no 27065/05, §§ 236-237, 2 décembre 2010, Öcalan c. Turquie [GC], no 46221/99, § 210, CEDH 2005-IV, et Broniowski c. Pologne [GC], no 31443/96, § 192, CEDH 2004-V).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 68762/14

  ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Subject to monitoring by the Committee of Ministers, the respondent State remains free to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions and the spirit of the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; Broniowski v. Poland [GC], no. 31443/96, § 192, ECHR 2004-V; Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, §§ 89-98, ECHR 2005-X; Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, §§ 70-71, ECHR 2006-XIV; Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, §§ 235-43, 2 December 2010; Emre v. Switzerland (no. 2), no. 5056/10, §§ 67-68, 11 October 2011; and McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 142, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  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, 20.11.2018 - 2256/09

  NANIYEVA AND BAGAYEV v. GEORGIA

  The same applies to situations of indiscriminate use of lethal force against civilian population, if the level of danger the applicant was exposed to was sufficiently immediate and severe (see Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, 2 December 2010, §§ 200 and 203).
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 15014/11

  HASAN KÖSE v. TURKEY

  In a number of exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found was such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court has indicated the necessary measures in its judgments (see, among other authorities, Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, § 237, 2 December 2010 and the cases cited therein, and Nihayet Arici and Others v. Turkey, nos. 24604/04 and 16855/05, §§ 173-76, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 49169/16

  AMRAHOV v. ARMENIA

  The same applies to situations of indiscriminate use of lethal force against the civilian population, if the level of danger the applicant was exposed to was sufficiently immediate and severe (see Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, §§ 200 and 203, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 26.02.2019 - 74628/16

  KHUDUNTS v. AZERBAIJAN