Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  YUSUPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 05.06.2007 - 63758/00

  ANIK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 5428/05

  Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect, the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need to make a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 84-86, ECHR 2004-XI, and Anık and Others v. Turkey, no. 63758/00, § 86, 5 June 2007).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2009 - 5428/05

  The Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants" relative were actually incurred and second whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).

• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 35/10

  ZARMAYEV c. BELGIQUE

  [4] Voir aussi Khasuyeva c. Russie, no 28159/03, 11 juin 2009, Yusupova et autres c. Russie, no 5428/05, 9 juillet 2009, Mutsayeva c. Russie, no 24297/05, 23 juillet 2009, et Asadulayeva et autres c. Russie, no 15569/06, 17 septembre 2009.
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As it has decided in previous cases, the Court does not find it appropriate to examine any new matters raised after the communication of the application to the Government, as long as they do not constitute a mere elaboration upon the applicant's original complaints to the Court (see Nuray Sen v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 25354/94, § 200, 30 March 2004; Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005; Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 38, ECHR 2008-...; Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 88, ECHR 2008-...; Yusupova and Others v. Russia, no. 5428/05, § 51, 9 July 2009; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, § 72, 27 May 2010; and Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 44798/05, § 30, 11 May 2010).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 45875/06

  RAFIG ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As it has decided in previous cases, the Court does not find it appropriate to examine any new matters raised after the communication of the application to the Government, as long as they do not constitute a mere elaboration upon the applicant's original complaints to the Court (see Nuray Sen v. Turkey (no. 2), no. 25354/94, § 200, 30 March 2004; Piryanik v. Ukraine, no. 75788/01, § 20, 19 April 2005; Kovach v. Ukraine, no. 39424/02, § 38, ECHR 2008-...; Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 88, ECHR 2008-...; Yusupova and Others v. Russia, no. 5428/05, § 51, 9 July 2009; Saghinadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 18768/05, § 72, 27 May 2010; and Ruza v. Latvia (dec.), no. 44798/05, § 30, 11 May 2010).