Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GONGADZE c. UKRAINE
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Exception préliminaire rejetée (délai de six mois) Violations de l'art. 2 Violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 13 Dommage matériel et préjudice moral frais et dépens - réparation pécuniaire ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GONGADZE v. UKRAINE
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (Six-month period) Violations of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage costs and expenses - financial award (englisch) - juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Kurzfassungen/Presse
- RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 22.03.2005 - 34056/02
- EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
Papierfundstellen
- NJW 2007, 895
Wird zitiert von ... (42) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93
Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
For an investigation into an alleged unlawful killing by State agents to be effective, it may generally be regarded as necessary for the persons responsible for and carrying out the investigation to be independent from those implicated in the events (see Güleç v. Turkey, judgment of 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, p. 1733, §§ 81-82, and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III). - EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94
ÇAKICI v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
There is also a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, judgment of 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, pp. 2439-40, §§ 102-04, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, §§ 80, 87 and 106, ECHR 1999-IV). - EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
KILIÇ v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
For a positive obligation to arise, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2000-III). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force or a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in ensuring public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-95, ECHR 2001-VII). - EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94
AVSAR c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force or a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in ensuring public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, in general, McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 108-15, ECHR 2001-III, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, §§ 390-95, ECHR 2001-VII).
- VGH Bayern, 09.11.2018 - 22 C 18.1718
Vorlage zum Europäischen Gerichtshof: Zwangshaft gegenüber Amtsträgern
Da der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte aus Art. 2 Abs. 1 Satz 1 EMRK die Pflicht der Staaten hergeleitet hat, die notwendigen Maßnahmen zum Schutz des Lebens von Personen zu treffen, die seiner Hoheitsgewalt unterstehen (EGMR…, Urteil vom 22.3.2001 - Nrn. 34044/96, 35532/97 und 44801/98, Rn. 86; Urteil vom 8.11.2005 - Nr. 34056/02, Rn. 164), geht der Bayerische Verwaltungsgerichtshof im Licht des Art. 52 Abs. 3 EU-GR-Charta davon aus, dass der durch Art. 2 Abs. 1 und Art. 3 Abs. 1 EU-GR-Charta verbürgte Schutz nicht weniger weit reicht. - EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07
Massaker von Katyn
The Government further noted the absence of "special factors" which could have given the applicants" sufferings "a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of serious violations of human rights" (here they quoted Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 357-358, 18 June 2002).It can also result from the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or from the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, where this attitude may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, in particular, Açıs v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, §§ 36 and 51-54, 1 February 2011; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
- EGMR, 21.01.2016 - 71545/12
L.E. c. GRÈCE
En outre, ledit délai peut aussi commencer à courir à la date à laquelle ont eu lieu les faits incriminés ou encore à la date à laquelle l'intéressé a été directement affecté par les faits en question, en a eu connaissance ou aurait pu en avoir connaissance lorsqu'aucune voie de recours n'est disponible en droit interne (Gongadzé c. Ukraine, no 34056/02, § 155, CEDH 2005-XI).
- OLG Frankfurt, 12.12.2012 - 4 EntV 3/12
Entschädigung für überlange Verfahrensdauer: Keine Anwendung auf länger …
Daraus folgt, dass die Frist für die Beschwerde im Sinne von Art. 35 Abs. 1 EMRK nicht an den Abschluss eines solchen Verfahrens anknüpft (EGMR, Urteile vom 8.11.2005, Nr. 34056/02, NJW 2007, 895, 896, Rz. 155 …und vom 18.9.2009, Nr. 16064/90, NVwZ-RR 2011, 251, 255 Rz. 156 f.;… Karpenstein/Meyer/Schäfer , EMRK, 2012, Art. 35 Rz. 53 f. m.w.N.). - EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 34358/16
AKHMEDNABIYEV AND KAMALOV v. RUSSIA
The domestic authorities were therefore informed about the threats to Mr Akhmednabiyev's life (see, in the same vein, Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, §§ 66-70, 14 September 2010, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 167, ECHR 2005-XI, and contrast with Tagiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 72611/14, § 65, 7 July 2022). - EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07
JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
The Government also contrasted the instant case with the case of Gongadze v. Ukraine (no. 34056/02, ECHR 2005-XI). - EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 15086/07
Mord an Journalistin: Russland wegen Politkowskaja-Ermittlungen verurteilt
The domestic authorities" scrutiny in the case concerning a contract killing must aim to go beyond identification of a hitman and it is incumbent on the Court to satisfy itself that the investigation in the present case has addressed this important point (see, for example, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 176, ECHR 2005-XI and Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, §§ 115-16, 13 April 2017). - EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 63638/09
TURLUYEVA v. RUSSIA
The Court has already found that negligence displayed by the investigating or supervising authorities in the face of real and imminent threats to an identified individual's life emanating from State agents, such as police, who were acting clearly outside their legal duties, might entail a violation of the positive obligation to protect life (see Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 170, ECHR 2005-XI). - EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09
VAN COLLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
In these cases and, further, in other cases concerning prior threats by third parties later ending in the killing of another individual, the fact that the deceased may have been in a category of person who may have been particularly vulnerable was but one of the relevant circumstances of the case to be assessed, in the light of all the circumstances, in order to answer the first of the two questions which make up the Osman test of responsibility (Osman, § 116; Kiliç v. Turkey, §§ 62-63 and 66; Akkoç v. Turkey, §§ 77-78 and 81; and Koku v. Turkey, §§ 125-128 and 131, all cited above, as well as Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 164-165 and 168, ECHR 2005-XI). - EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 3179/05
GAKIYEV AND GAKIYEVA v. RUSSIA
However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, §§ 184-186, ECHR 2005-XI). - EGMR, 08.04.2010 - 38779/04
FELDMAN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 17.09.2009 - 35052/04
ZABIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 02.04.2009 - 22684/05
MURADOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 65286/13
KHADIJA ISMAYILOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 05.04.2011 - 32297/07
KIRKIT c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10
HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10
BUNTOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
MASNEVA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14
TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.09.2011 - 4737/06
KACHURKA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 29361/02
KUKAYEV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 17054/06
ALIKHANOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09
MAKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 26938/08
TENGILIMOGLU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 26793/08
KOÇ AND DEMIR c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 38665/07
PULATLI c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1572/07
NASUKHANOVY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 15.07.2010 - 16695/04
GAZETA UKRAINA-TSENTR v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.01.2010 - 44936/04
BABAT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 43146/15
NEMTSOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 25.08.2020 - 66975/10
REPEY v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 12552/09
SHIYANOV v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09
GAYSANOVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 61876/08
SERDYUK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 16343/07
METSAVEER v. ESTONIA
- EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 75726/01
LYUBOV EFIMENKO v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 44989/08
XB. c. FRANCE ET GRECE
- EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 37938/03
MURILLO ESPINOSA c. ESPAGNE
- EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 659/10
BANDURA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 60790/12
CHUMAK v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 27.04.2010 - 7529/07
SUPRUN v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 13.11.2008 - 39964/02
KHAYLO v. UKRAINE