Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VAKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 13, Art. 13 Abs. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13-2 (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  The Court reiterates that Article 2, which safeguards the right to life and sets out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention, from which no derogation is permitted (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 147, Series A no. 324).

  The Court now has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant 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, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny, or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see Oÿur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  Lastly, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicants' representatives' accounts (see, for example, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII, and Imakayeva, cited above).

 
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A, Ribitsch, cited above, § 34, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court refers to its jurisprudence in which the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" has been applied in its assessment of evidence (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

  DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information capable of corroborating or refuting an applicant's allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of those allegations (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006- XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

• VG Koblenz, 01.09.2008 - 3 K 1282/07

  Aufenthaltsrecht; Ausländerrecht: Ermessensausweisung nach erheblichen …

  Er ist nämlich mit Blick auf seine gesamte vorstehend aufgezeigte Entwicklung nicht etwa faktisch zu einem Inländer geworden, so dass ihm ein Leben in der Türkei nicht hätte zugemutet werden können (vgl. hierzu VGH Hessen, Beschluss vom 15. Februar 2006 - 7 TG 106/06 -, Asyl-Magazin 2006, 32 ff.; VGH Baden-Württemberg, Urteil vom 18. Januar 2006 - 13 F 2220/05 -, Asyl-Magazin 2006, S. 29 ff.; OVG Rheinland-Pfalz, Beschluss vom 24. Februar 2006 - 7 B 10020/06.OVG -, jeweils mit weiteren Nachweisen aus der Rechtsprechung).
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 35/10

  ZARMAYEV c. BELGIQUE

  Elle a pris acte des intenses souffrances endurées par les proches des disparus et a constaté des violations de l'article 3 du fait que la Russie n'avait pas fourni d'explications adéquates ou plausibles aux proches des disparus, malgré des années de vaines enquêtes (voir, par exemple, Karimov et autres c. Russie, no 29851/05, 16 juillet 2009, Vakayeva et autres c. Russie, no 2220/05, 10 juin 2010).