Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
SHAFIYEVA v. RUSSIA
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
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) ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (13)
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey, cited above, § 106, and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109).Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the identity of the person responsible will risk falling below this standard (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey, cited above, § 106, and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109).
- EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).In all cases, however, the next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
Referring to its settled case-law, the Court reiterates that, where a person has been abducted by State security forces and has subsequently disappeared, his or her relatives can claim to be victims of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental distress caused by the "disappearance" of their family member and the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI).
- EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01
LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
The Court has found the Russian State authorities responsible for a number of extra-judicial executions or disappearances of civilians perpetrated in the Chechen Republic at the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII; Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, 12 October 2006; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007). - EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00
ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
The Court has found the Russian State authorities responsible for a number of extra-judicial executions or disappearances of civilians perpetrated in the Chechen Republic at the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII; Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, 12 October 2006; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence requiring the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
The Court has found the Russian State authorities responsible for a number of extra-judicial executions or disappearances of civilians perpetrated in the Chechen Republic at the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII; Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, 12 October 2006; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007). - EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01
ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
On that basis, it has concluded that the areas in question were "within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State" in view of the military or security operations being conducted there and the presence of servicemen (see, mutatis mutandis, Akkum v. Turkey, cited above, § 211, and Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, § 82, 10 January 2008). - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Avsar, cited above, § 391). - EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01
BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
- EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01
TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 39797/05
YURIY SLYUSAR v. UKRAINE
More specifically, where death occurs under suspicious circumstances, leaving room for allegations to be made of the intentional taking of life, the State must ensure some form of effective official investigation (see Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V; Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 156-57, 9 April 2009; Girard v. France, no. 22590/04, § 76, 30 June 2011; and Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, §§ 86-96, 3 May 2012). - EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 16397/07
TSAKOYEVY v. RUSSIA
Conversely, where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof could not be reversed (see, for example, Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 71, 3 May 2012).