Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 25732/05   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2010,63184
EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 25732/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63184)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.11.2010 - 25732/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63184)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. November 2010 - 25732/05 (https://dejure.org/2010,63184)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2010,63184) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges




Kontextvorschau:





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

Wird zitiert von ... (13)  

  • EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

    IGOR SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

    The Court further notes that Article 2 of the Convention may also be applicable when there has not been loss of life, however, the circumstances of the case and the nature of inflicted injuries indicate that the applicant's life was in serious danger (see Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

    ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

    The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2 of the Convention requires the States, in particular, to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life in context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see, among other authorities, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-XII; Kalender v. Turkey, no. 4314/02, § 51, 15 December 2009; and Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 44, 9 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 05.06.2014 - 12317/06

    AKOPYAN v. UKRAINE

    The applicant did not appeal at domestic level against the judgments of 31 January and 19 April 2007 and therefore it is not open to her to challenge the sufficiency of the amount at international level (see Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 51, 9 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

    GAVRYLOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    The Court notes that it has found Article 2 applicable in a number of other cases where the complaints were raised by individuals, who happened to be fortuitous survivors of life-threatening incidents (see, for instance, Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010; Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 146, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

    KOTELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court further notes that Article 2 of the Convention may also be applicable when there has been no loss of life, however, the circumstances of the case and the nature of inflicted injuries indicate that the applicant's life was in serious danger (see Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 42, 12 January 2012; and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI).
  • EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36660/08

    ZUBKOVA v. UKRAINE

    The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2 of the Convention requires the States, in particular, to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life in context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see, among other authorities, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-XII; Kalender v. Turkey, no. 4314/02, § 51, 15 December 2009; and Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 44, 9 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 32604/12

    KHRAMKOVY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

    The Court notes that in various cases it has found Article 2 applicable to the complaints raised by fortuitous survivors of life-threatening incidents (see, for instance, Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, §§ 44-45, 9 November 2010; Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 146, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 51151/10

    BASYUK v. UKRAINE

    The first sentence of Article 2 of the Convention requires the States to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life in context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see, among other authorities, Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-XII; Kalender v. Turkey, no. 4314/02, § 51, 15 December 2009; and Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 44, 9 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 10558/11

    KOSMATA v. UKRAINE

    The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2 of the Convention requires the States, in particular, to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life in the context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see, e.g., Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-XII; Kalender v. Turkey, no. 4314/02, § 51, 15 December 2009; Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 44, 9 November 2010).
  • EGMR, 20.02.2018 - 25414/14

    BOPKHOYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Regard being had to the seriousness of the applicant's condition and the damage to her health, the Court will examine her grievances from the standpoint of Article 2 of the Convention (see, Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010), which, is so far as relevant, reads as follows:.
  • EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 18295/08

    CIOBAN v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 6194/06

    ZAHARIEVA v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 04.03.2014 - 46962/08

    TAKÁCS v. HUNGARY

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht