Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2006,38723
EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,38723)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.11.2006 - 7615/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,38723)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. November 2006 - 7615/02 (https://dejure.org/2006,38723)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2006,38723) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IMAKAYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Art. 2, Art. ... 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 No separate issues under Art. 6 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13 in respect of the alleged violations of Art. 2 and 3 No separate issues ...

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE [Extraits]

    Art. 2, Art. ... 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
    Violation de l'art. 2 (volet matériel) Violation de l'art. 2 (volet procédural) Violation de l'art. 3 Violation de l'art. 5 Aucune question distincte au regard de l'art. 6 Violation de l'art. 8 Violation de l'art. 13 en ce qui concerne les violations ...

  • humanrights.ch PDF

    (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (262)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    194. In view of the Court's findings above on Articles 2 and 3, these complaints are clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131 § 52).
  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    140. In the Timurta v. Turkey judgment (no. 23531/94, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2000-VI) the Court stated:.
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    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 McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 146-147).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

    McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    113. The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a firstinstance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

    ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    authorities to account for individuals under their control, Article 5 requires them to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into an arguable claim that a person has been taken into custody and has not been seen since (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no.23657/94, § 104, ECHR-1999-IV; and Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001).
  • EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

    CICEK v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    authorities to account for individuals under their control, Article 5 requires them to take effective measures to safeguard against the risk of disappearance and to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into an arguable claim that a person has been taken into custody and has not been seen since (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no.23657/94, § 104, ECHR-1999-IV; and Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001).
  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

    TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony (see for example, Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 109, ECHR 1999-IV).
  • EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see the judgments in Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, cited above, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

    TOMASI c. FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see the judgments in Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, cited above, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

    RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
    Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, the judgments in Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 32; and Avar v. Turkey, cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

    AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

    ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

    MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

    TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 02.11.2004 - 30494/96

    TUNCER AND DURMUS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 28761/11

    Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis

    In particular, in a case where the application raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999 IV; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 200, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

    The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see Imakayeva, cited above, no. 7615/02, § 113; Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.

  • EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

    Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis

    In particular, in a case where the application raises issues concerning the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999 IV; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 200, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

    The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see Imakayeva, cited above, no. 7615/02, § 113, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.

    The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see El-Masri, cited above, § 152; Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, §§ 114-115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).

  • EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

    Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

    The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 113, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos.

    Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht