Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKHAURI v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 13+2, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 13+2 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 58701/00
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 158, 31 May 2005; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 158, 31 May 2005; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  Thus, it has found that 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, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).

 
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  Indeed, in such situations the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities (see, inter alia, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  Such a parallel is based on the salient fact that in both situations the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  Thus, it has found that 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, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  In view of the Court's findings above with regard to Article 2, these complaints are clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  The Court has to establish, first, whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 63, § 220).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58701/00

  Thus, it has found that 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, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).

• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 41840/02

  SADYKOV v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any conclusive evidence as to the applicant's claims for the medical expenses and on the basis of the principles of equity, the Court considers it reasonable to award him EUR 5, 000 in this respect (see, in a similar context, Makhauri v. Russia, no. 58701/00, §§ 138-39, 4 October 2007).