Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• spiegel.de (Pressemeldung, 08.12.2015)

  Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  Furthermore, it is also meant to protect the authorities and other concerned parties from being left in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  Furthermore, it is also meant to protect the authorities and other concerned parties from being left in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2 of the Convention, 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, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities" reaction and attitude to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary and reasonable (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities" reaction and attitude to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 32349/16

  VUJNOVIC v. CROATIA

  The relevant general principles concerning the six-month time-limit are set out in the case of Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 258-269, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also Dudayeva v. Russia, no. 67437/09, §§ 65-68, 8 December 2015, and Milic v. Croatia, no. 38766/15, §§ 25-30, 25 January 2018).