Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DANGAYEVA AND TARAMOVA v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 1896/04

  In view of the Court's above findings with regard to Article 2, this complaint is clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 1896/04

  As to the facts in dispute, the Court refers to its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of the evidence (see Avÿar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 1896/04

  The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 1896/04

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 1896/04

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324).

• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 44592/16

  BOBOC AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  In respect of the applicants' complaint about the mental suffering caused by the death of their son and husband, the Court notes that it has consistently refused to extend the application of Article 3 to the relatives of persons who have allegedly been killed in violation of Article 2 of the Convention, as opposed to the relatives of the victims of enforced disappearances (see Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005, and Dangayeva and Taramova v. Russia, no. 1896/04, § 107, 8 January 2009).