Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VOVK AND BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VOVK AND BOGDANOVA v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 04.02.2014 - 33647/04

  ORUK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  Where it is established that the negligence attributable to State officials or bodies on that account goes beyond an error of judgment or carelessness, in that the authorities in question - fully realising the likely consequences and disregarding the powers vested in them - failed to take measures that were necessary and sufficient to avert the risks inherent in a dangerous activity, the fact that those responsible for endangering life have not been charged with a criminal offence or prosecuted may amount to a violation of Article 2, irrespective of any other types of remedy that individuals may exercise on their own initiative (see Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 71 and 93, ECHR 2004-XII, and Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, §§ 56-66, 4 February 2014).

  [27] Oruk v. Turkey, no. 33647/04, § 64, 4 February 2014.

• EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 19202/03

  ILIYA PETROV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  This is the case, for example, in respect of the management of dangerous activities (see Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 19202/03, §§ 54 and 56, 24 April 2012, which concerned a serious injury to an eleven-year-old child after he had been accidentally electrocuted in an unsecured electrical substation; Pereira Henriques v. Luxembourg, no. 60255/00, §§ 54-63, 9 May 2006; Kudra v. Croatia, no. 13904/07, §§ 106-07, 18 December 2012, which concerned incidents on or near a building site; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05 and 5 others, § 158, 28 February 2012, which concerned industrial activities), within the context of emergency relief (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2008 (extracts)), or in respect of death in a public place (see Banel v. Lithuania, no. 14326/11, §§ 64-65 and 68, 18 June 2013, which concerned a thirteen-year-old boy's death from injuries sustained when part of a balcony had broken off from a building and had fallen on him while he had been out playing).

  [43] Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 19202/03, §§ 58-65, 24 April 2012.

• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  Indeed, in view of the fact that the applicants were the survivors of a grenade explosion who received life threatening injuries, Article 2 is applicable (Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 144 and 146-50, 25 June 2019; see also Akdemir and Evin v. Turkey, nos. 58255/08 and 29725/09, § 46, 17 March 2015, and Sarur v. Turkey, no. 55949/11, § 27, 2 May 2017).

  [11] Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 163, 25 June 2019.

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  For earlier case-law see, among others, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 94, ECHR 2004-VIII.
• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 60255/00

  PEREIRA HENRIQUES c. LUXEMBOURG

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  This is the case, for example, in respect of the management of dangerous activities (see Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 19202/03, §§ 54 and 56, 24 April 2012, which concerned a serious injury to an eleven-year-old child after he had been accidentally electrocuted in an unsecured electrical substation; Pereira Henriques v. Luxembourg, no. 60255/00, §§ 54-63, 9 May 2006; Kudra v. Croatia, no. 13904/07, §§ 106-07, 18 December 2012, which concerned incidents on or near a building site; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05 and 5 others, § 158, 28 February 2012, which concerned industrial activities), within the context of emergency relief (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2008 (extracts)), or in respect of death in a public place (see Banel v. Lithuania, no. 14326/11, §§ 64-65 and 68, 18 June 2013, which concerned a thirteen-year-old boy's death from injuries sustained when part of a balcony had broken off from a building and had fallen on him while he had been out playing).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07

  KUDRA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  This is the case, for example, in respect of the management of dangerous activities (see Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 19202/03, §§ 54 and 56, 24 April 2012, which concerned a serious injury to an eleven-year-old child after he had been accidentally electrocuted in an unsecured electrical substation; Pereira Henriques v. Luxembourg, no. 60255/00, §§ 54-63, 9 May 2006; Kudra v. Croatia, no. 13904/07, §§ 106-07, 18 December 2012, which concerned incidents on or near a building site; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05 and 5 others, § 158, 28 February 2012, which concerned industrial activities), within the context of emergency relief (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2008 (extracts)), or in respect of death in a public place (see Banel v. Lithuania, no. 14326/11, §§ 64-65 and 68, 18 June 2013, which concerned a thirteen-year-old boy's death from injuries sustained when part of a balcony had broken off from a building and had fallen on him while he had been out playing).
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 17423/05

  KOLYADENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  This is the case, for example, in respect of the management of dangerous activities (see Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 19202/03, §§ 54 and 56, 24 April 2012, which concerned a serious injury to an eleven-year-old child after he had been accidentally electrocuted in an unsecured electrical substation; Pereira Henriques v. Luxembourg, no. 60255/00, §§ 54-63, 9 May 2006; Kudra v. Croatia, no. 13904/07, §§ 106-07, 18 December 2012, which concerned incidents on or near a building site; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05 and 5 others, § 158, 28 February 2012, which concerned industrial activities), within the context of emergency relief (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2008 (extracts)), or in respect of death in a public place (see Banel v. Lithuania, no. 14326/11, §§ 64-65 and 68, 18 June 2013, which concerned a thirteen-year-old boy's death from injuries sustained when part of a balcony had broken off from a building and had fallen on him while he had been out playing).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  For earlier case-law see, among others, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 94, ECHR 2004-VIII.
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2020 - 15613/10

  This is the case, for example, in respect of the management of dangerous activities (see Iliya Petrov v. Bulgaria, no. 19202/03, §§ 54 and 56, 24 April 2012, which concerned a serious injury to an eleven-year-old child after he had been accidentally electrocuted in an unsecured electrical substation; Pereira Henriques v. Luxembourg, no. 60255/00, §§ 54-63, 9 May 2006; Kudra v. Croatia, no. 13904/07, §§ 106-07, 18 December 2012, which concerned incidents on or near a building site; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos. 17423/05 and 5 others, § 158, 28 February 2012, which concerned industrial activities), within the context of emergency relief (see Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 158-59, ECHR 2008 (extracts)), or in respect of death in a public place (see Banel v. Lithuania, no. 14326/11, §§ 64-65 and 68, 18 June 2013, which concerned a thirteen-year-old boy's death from injuries sustained when part of a balcony had broken off from a building and had fallen on him while he had been out playing).