Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2007,56353
EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,56353)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.07.2007 - 68007/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,56353)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Juli 2007 - 68007/01 (https://dejure.org/2007,56353)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2007,56353) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ALIKHADZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 13+2, Art. 13+5 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 3 No separate issue under Art. 3 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13+2 and 13+3 No violation of Art. 13+5 No failure to comply ...

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (89)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01
    Failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands, without a satisfactory explanation, may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01
    The Court also notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation of costs and expenses are to be paid directly to the applicant's representative's 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, cited above).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

    LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01
    The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in Chechnya (see, for example, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...; and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-...).
     
  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

    IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01
    The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in Chechnya (see, for example, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...; and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-...).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01
    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, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01
    In view of the Court's above findings with regard to Articles 2 and 3, 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, 17.09.2009 - 15569/06

    ASADULAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    In the Court's view, this fact would rather strongly support the applicants' allegation that these were State agents (compare Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, § 59, 5 July 2007; Nasukhanova and Others v. Russia, no. 5285/04, § 95, 18 December 2008; and Ruslan Umarov v. Russia, no. 12712/02, § 91, 3 July 2008).

    The Court particularly stresses that in a number of cases concerning disappearance of people in the Chechen Republic it repeatedly held that when a person is detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening (see, among many other authorities, Bazorkina and Imakayeva, both cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007, and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

    ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Having regard to the numerous previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia which have come before it, the Court has found that in the particular context of the conflict, when a person was detained by unidentified State agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this could be regarded as life-threatening (see, among many others, Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-VIII (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007; and Dubayev and Bersnukayeva v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 2964/12

    I.K. v. AUSTRIA

    The Court firstly reiterates that it has found violations of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention in numerous judgments in respect of disappearances and ill-treatment in Chechnya (see, among others, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007; Sambiyeva v. Russia, no. 20205/07, 8 November 2011; Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, 18 January 2007; and Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, 5 February 2009).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht