Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (44)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  She was not a dependent for the purpose of the 1976 Act and the 1934 Act only covered injuries or ill-treatment short of death (see, concerning similar circumstances, no. 27229/95, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, (Sect. 3) ECHR 2001, § 128).

  This may extend in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see the Osman v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, § 115) or from risks to their health arising from other circumstances under the responsibility of a public authority (see no. 27229/95, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, (Sect. 3), to be published in ECHR 2001, §§ 90-92).

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC] no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 100, and also Çakıcı v. Turkey, [GC] ECHR 1999-IV, § 85, Ertak v. Turkey no. 20764/92 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-V, § 32, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94 [Section 1] ECHR 2000-VI, § 82).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  The lack of appropriate medical treatment may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Ilhan v. Turkey [GC] no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 87).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, 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 or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see no. 24746/94, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, (Sect. 3), to be cited in ECHR 2001, §§ 105-109).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see the McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  According to the Court's case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an "arguable claim" to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

• EGMR, 18.09.2009 - 16064/90

  VARNAVA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Besides being independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition and affording a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results, the investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the death was caused unlawfully and if so, to the identification and punishment of those responsible ( see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-109, 4 May 2001; and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Besides being independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition and affording a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results, the investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the death was caused unlawfully and if so, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see OÄŸur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III; Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-109, 4 May 2001; and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  This investigation should be thorough, independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, 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 or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 115-18, 29 March 2011; and Umarova and Others v. Russia, no. 25654/08, §§ 84-88, 31 July 2012).

 
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  They submit that the present case is analogous to Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (decision, no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002, unreported), which was declared inadmissible by the Court on the basis that the police officers in that case were not found to have had any reason to suspect that the deceased was about to suffer a life-threatening seizure.
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 4571/04

  ISRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  It should also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was lawful and justified in the circumstances, and should afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 7461/08

  BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  This investigation should be thorough, independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, 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 or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 115-18, 29 March 2011; and Umarova and Others v. Russia, no. 25654/08, §§ 84-88, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 29.05.2012 - 36150/04

  DAMAYEV v. RUSSIA

  It should 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 or otherwise unlawful, and should afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  MUTSOLGOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, 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 or was otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 39953/07

  BAILEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has already had occasion to find Inquests capable, in principle, of fulfilling the requirements of effective investigation in many contexts including in the case of a death in custody (Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002; Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR, 7 January 2003, as regards England and Wales; and Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 76, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts), as regards France) and the Court considers, for the reasons noted below, that the present Inquest effectively fulfilled its fact-finding role.
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 3179/05

  GAKIYEV AND GAKIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  It should also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was lawful and justified in the circumstances, and should afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 21080/05

  VAGAPOVA AND ZUBIRAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 66953/09

  MILEUSNIC ET MILEUSNIC-ESPENHEIM c. CROATIE
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 69842/10

  ALBAKOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2215/05

  ARAPKHANOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 47215/07

  AVKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07

  MAAYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1572/07

  NASUKHANOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 9960/05

  TUMAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  VAKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.10.2009 - 43398/06

  KHANTIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 35052/04

  ZABIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 15569/06

  ASADULAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

  KHUMAYDOV AND KHUMAYDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13737/03

  NENKAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.05.2009 - 12417/05

  TURLUYEVA AND KHAMIDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2009 - 27244/03

  MALSAGOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 41498/04

  SAYDALIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 20583/04

  ZAKRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 5285/04

  NASUKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 20580/04

  TAGIROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

  SHAIPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2005 - 28079/04

  GREEN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 71593/11

  B. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 22.06.2010 - 6414/02

  KOSEVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.07.2009 - 15440/05

  PUKHIGOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.06.2009 - 33264/04

  KHALITOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13

  NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 13.12.2011 - 40957/07

  PEARSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 01.10.2009 - 27001/06

  AMANAT ILYASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.07.2010 - 8347/05

  BENUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 12457/05

  REZVANOV AND REZVANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2009 - 41515/04

  IDALOVA AND IDALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 35080/04

  ABDURZAKOVA AND ABDURZAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 1396/06

  McBRIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI