Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERKULOVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  On numerous occasions the Court has found Article 6 to be applicable to civil-party claims in criminal proceedings and has examined relevant complaints on the merits (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2004-I; and mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, §§ 9 and 25, 8 November 2005, and Sergey Shevchenko, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 22465/03

  SANDRU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  No pronouncement at national level has ever been made concerning the sufficiency of the measures taken in the course of the investigation into Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death for discharging the State's Convention duty under Article 2. The applicant thus cannot be said to have lost her victim status in respect of this complaint, irrespective of A.Y.'s conviction (see, mutatis mutandis, Sandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 62-64, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 22431/02

  BAGLAY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  On numerous occasions the Court has found Article 6 to be applicable to civil-party claims in criminal proceedings and has examined relevant complaints on the merits (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2004-I; and mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, §§ 9 and 25, 8 November 2005, and Sergey Shevchenko, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 17985/04

  DUDNYK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force or a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in ensuring public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, as a recent authority, Dudnyk v. Ukraine, no. 17985/04, § 33, 10 December 2009).

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17860/17

  GOLOBORODKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Failure of the authorities to take all necessary actions for the establishment of a suspect's whereabouts in good time (Merkulova v. Ukraine,no. 21454/04, § 58, 3 March 2011).
• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 8938/07

  KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Furthermore, while identification and punishment of those responsible for the death in question and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, §§ 66-67, 2 September 2010), in a significant number of cases already brought before the Court, the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities" part as regards conducting the proceedings, regardless of the final outcome of those proceedings (see, for example, Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 51, 3 March 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  AKELIENE v. LITHUANIA

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating suspicious deaths may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 50, 3 March 2011, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 237, ECHR 2016), and to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others, § 27, and Mustafayev, § 73, both cited above).

 
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 35493/10

  BUCHYNSKA c. UKRAINE

  The Court reiterates that a substantial delay in an investigation concerning an assault on life can in and of itself undermine public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law and raise an issue under Article 2 of the Convention, unless it is justified by objective circumstances (see e.g. Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, §§ 50-51 and 61, 3 March 2011 and Kachurka, cited above, § 50).
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 61876/08

  SERDYUK v. UKRAINE

  While this is an obligation of means rather than that of a result, a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in it (see, e.g., Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 175-177, ECHR 2005; Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, §§ 49-51, March 2011 and Yuriy Slyusar v. Ukraine, no. 39797/05, §§ 76-78 and 82, 17 January 2013 with further references).
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 58347/08

  YERMAKOVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that it has examined a number of applications against Ukraine concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention (see Sergey Shevchenko (cited above); Lyubov Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 75726/01, 25 November 2010; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, 3 November 2011; Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, 3 March 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, 12 January 2012; and Kachurka v. Ukraine, no. 4737/06, 15 September 2011).