Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABDULKHADZHIYEVA AND ABDULKHADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 13+2-1 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40001/08

  The same applies to an attack where the victim survives but which, because of the lethal force used, amounted to attempted murder (see Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 171, 24 February 2005, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40001/08

  It is true that the applicants did not lose their lives in the attack, but the Court has held before that the requirements of Article 2 apply to an attack where the victim survives but which, because of the lethal force used, by its very nature put his or her life at risk (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Makhauri v. Russia, no. 58701/00, § 117, 4 October 2007; Nakayev v. Russia, no. 29846/05, § 58, 21 June 2011; and Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40001/08

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2 of the Convention, the Court must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, particularly where deliberate lethal force is used, taking into consideration not only the actions of the State agents who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-50, Series A no. 324; Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, 9 October 1997, § 171, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; and Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 78, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05

  NAKAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40001/08

  It is true that the applicants did not lose their lives in the attack, but the Court has held before that the requirements of Article 2 apply to an attack where the victim survives but which, because of the lethal force used, by its very nature put his or her life at risk (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Makhauri v. Russia, no. 58701/00, § 117, 4 October 2007; Nakayev v. Russia, no. 29846/05, § 58, 21 June 2011; and Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 36875/11

  KHAKIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in opening the criminal cases, or the lulls in the proceedings, therefore cannot be interpreted as the applicants" failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50556/08

  KUKURKHOYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in opening the criminal cases or the lulls in the proceedings cannot, therefore, be interpreted as failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  TIMERBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in opening the criminal cases, or the lulls in the proceedings, therefore cannot be interpreted as the applicants" failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months while the investigation was seemingly dormant).

 
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 6636/09

  KHAMKHOYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delay in the opening of the criminal case, or the lulls in the proceedings, cannot therefore be interpreted as constituting a failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Sagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 22698/09 and 31189/11, §§ 58-61, 8 December 2015, and Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, § 67, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51119/15

  GADAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Therefore, the lull in the proceedings noted by the Government cannot be interpreted as constituting a failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months; also contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, during which time the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 22983/10

  MAKHMUDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in opening the criminal cases, or the lulls in the proceedings, therefore cannot be interpreted as the applicants" failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 36962/09

  TAZUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in the opening of the criminal cases or the lulls in the proceedings cannot, therefore, be interpreted as constituting a failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months; contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, even though the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12

  ABUBAKAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in opening the criminal cases, and the lulls in the proceedings, cannot therefore be interpreted as failure by the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where a delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).