Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KLEYN AND ALEKSANDROVICH v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six month period) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 40657/04

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 40657/04

  Neither the first nor the second applicant was granted the procedural status of a victim and could not exercise the procedural rights accompanying that status, such as the rights to lodge applications, to put questions to experts or to obtain copies of procedural decisions (see the domestic law in paragraph 32 above and compare with Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 157, 17 December 2009, and Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, § 93, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 40657/04

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman, cited above, § 100).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  LYAPIN v. RUSSIA

  In several cases where the authorities never instituted criminal proceedings and their investigative efforts were limited to a "pre-investigation inquiry", the Court regarded such a legal framework as inadequate, as it undermined the quality of evidence collected and the applicants" right to effective participation in the proceedings in the absence of the procedural status of "victim" (see, mutatis mutandis, Kleyn and Aleksandrovich v. Russia, no. 40657/04, §§ 56-58, 3 May 2012; see further Buntov v. Russia, no. 27026/10, §§ 132-133, 5 June 2012; Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts); and Beresnev v. Russia, no. 37975/02, § 98, 18 April 2013).
• EGMR, 22.12.2015 - 68736/11

  LYKOVA c. RUSSIE

  Dans tous les cas, toutefois, un accès effectif du plaignant à la procédure d'enquête est indispensable (El-Masri, précité, § 185, CEDH 2012, et Kleyn et Aleksandrovich c. Russie, no 40657/04, § 57, 3 mai 2012).
• EGMR, 23.03.2021 - 50636/11

  KOTENOK c. RUSSIE

  Se référant aux arrêts Salman c. Turquie ([GC], no 21986/93, §§ 73, 105, 106, CEDH 2000-VII), Kleyn et Aleksandrovich c. Russie, (no 40657/04, § 52, 3 mai 2012), et Gül c. Turquie, (no 22676/93, § 89, 14 décembre 2000), le Gouvernement indique que, dans tous les cas où un détenu décède dans des conditions suspectes et que les causes de ce décès sont susceptibles d'être rattachées à une action ou une omission de la part d'agents ou de services publics, les autorités ont l'obligation de mener une enquête effective de nature à permettre d'établir les causes de la mort, d'identifier les éventuels responsables de celle-ci et d'aboutir à leur punition.
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 15980/12

  MASLOVA c. RUSSIE

  Elle souligne que la première phrase de l'article 2 impose aux États contractants l'obligation non seulement de s'abstenir de donner la mort intentionnellement ou par le biais d'un recours à la force disproportionné aux buts légitimes mentionnés aux alinéas a) à c) du second paragraphe de cette disposition, mais aussi de prendre les mesures nécessaires à la protection de la vie des personnes relevant de leur juridiction (Kleyn et Aleksandrovich c. Russie, no 40657/04, § 42, 3 mai 2012, et Giuliani et Gaggio, [GC], no 23458/02, § 174, CEDH 2011).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 18407/10

  DOBRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In view of this, the Court has serious doubts that a pre-investigation inquiry was capable of complying with the above-mentioned requirements over such a long period in a situation where an arguable complaint raising potential problems under Article 2 had been lodged (see, mutatis mutandis, Kleyn and Aleksandrovich v. Russia, no. 40657/04, §§ 56-58, 3 May 2012, and Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, no. 71386/10, § 193, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).