Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VELKHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 5 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 No violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Neu Zitiert selbst (16)

• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  An obligation to investigate "is not an obligation of result, but of means": not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 71, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  Furthermore, the investigation must be conducted expeditiously (see Labita, cited above, §§ 133 et seq., and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 89, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  They relied in this connection on the cases of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-203, ECHR 2004-II) and Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ((preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 84, ECHR 2003-VI).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  However, the Court finds it reasonable to assume that Mr Bashir Velkhiyev would eventually have had some earnings from which the second to seventh applicants would have benefited (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 213, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 29361/02

  KUKAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  The Court notes that in numerous cases in comparable circumstances (see, among others, Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 131-34, 15 November 2007; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Lyanova and Aliyeva v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 12713/02

  LYANOVA AND ALIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  12713/02 and 28440/03, §§ 159-60, 2 October 2008), it decided that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent Government to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order in order to discharge their legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances (see, for example, Kaya, cited above, § 87) and to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999III).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony (see, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  In any event, the Court reiterates that, in respect of persons deprived of their liberty, recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by their own conduct diminishes human dignity and is in principle an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 99, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  To assess this evidence, the Court has adopted the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt", but has added that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 121, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  On the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

  In a series of Chechen cases in which the applicants had not witnessed the killing of their relatives but had found out about their deaths only on discovery of their bodies, the Court considered that no separate finding of a violation of Article 3 was necessary, given that it had already found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects (see Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  In view of its findings under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court considers that there is no need to examine further the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 363, ECHR 2007-II; Skendzic and Krznaric, cited above, § 111; and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 161, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  30613/05 and 30615/05, 11 February 2010, for the events in Chechnya; Khatuyeva v. Russia, no. 12463/05, 22 April 2010; Mutsolgova and Others v. Russia, no. 2952/06, 1 April 2010; and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, 5 July 2011 for the events in Ingushetia).

 
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 59297/12

  M.G. c. BULGARIE

  Il s'agissait notamment de cas de disparitions forcées, de torture et de traitements inhumains et dégradants, ainsi que d'absence d'enquêtes effectives sur les allégations relatives à ces violations (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Bazorkina c. Russie, no 69481/01, 27 juillet 2006, Loulouïev et autres c. Russie, no 69480/01, CEDH 2006-XIII (extraits), Mutsolgova et autres c. Russie, no 2952/06, 1er avril 2010, Shokkarov et autres c. Russie, no 41009/04, 3 mai 2011, et Velkhiyev et autres c. Russie, no 34085/06, 5 juillet 2011).
• EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 39436/06

  Z. AND KHATUYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the 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); Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 38984/18

  KHUTIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that in other cases in comparable circumstances (see, among others, Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009 (extracts), and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 176, 5 July 2011), it has decided that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent State to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 32400/12

  DANILINY v. RUSSIA

  The Court notes that in numerous cases in comparable circumstances (see, among others, Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009 (extracts), and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 176, 5 July 2011), it has decided that it was most appropriate to leave it to the respondent State to choose the means to be used in the domestic legal order in order to discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 40799/06

  BOPAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the 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, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 11554/07

  KAYKHAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the 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, cited above; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 34541/06

  YANDIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, the Court has found that in the particular context of the conflict, when a person has been detained by unidentified agents of the State 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); Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, 5 July 2011).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 26960/06

  TOVBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA