Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETROSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;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);Violation of Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PETROSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  Consequently, where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to take steps to keep track of the investigation's progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002, and Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).

  In the Court's assessment, the applicant could, after the crucial information therein had become known, reasonably await the outcome of the initiative taken by the Prosecutor-General of Armenia on 22 August 2015 towards the authorities of the respondent State, of which the applicant was informed on 24 November 2015, before applying to the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 170; and contrast, for example, Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many other authorities, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 97-100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Aktas v. Turkey, 24351/94, §§ 289-291, 24 April 2003).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, among other authorities, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).

 
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  Consequently, where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to take steps to keep track of the investigation's progress, or lack thereof, and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002, and Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 35746/11

  SARIBEKYAN AND BALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  Furthermore, while the lack of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan must have been known to the applicant in 2015 and 2016, the Court bears in mind that the lack of diplomatic relations does not absolve a Contracting State from the obligation under Article 2 to cooperate in criminal investigations (see, for example, Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 35746/11, § 73, 30 January 2020, and the references therein).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  BITIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  In such cases the Court would normally limit its findings to Article 2. However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 105, 23 April 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  The relevant factors include the proximity of the family tie, the particular circumstances of the relationship, the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question and the involvement of the applicants in the attempts to obtain information about the fate of their relative (see, among other authorities, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 177, ECHR 2013).

• EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 33050/18

  GHAZARYAN AND BAYRAMYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  The facts of the instant case are not such that give rise to that particular categorisation (contrast, for example, Petrosyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 32427/16, §§ 74-75, 4 November 2021).
• EGMR, 07.02.2023 - 63962/19

  M.B. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2)

  However, it does not find it established that its level of severity and other relevant aspects were such as to amount to torture within the meaning of the Court's case-law (see, for example, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 97, ECHR 1999-V; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 114, ECHR 2000-VII; Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, § 508, 24 July 2014; and Petrosyan v. Azerbaijan, no. 32427/16, § 68, 4 November 2021).