Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TRAPEZNIKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of P1-1 ...

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  In particular, the authorities must take the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  In particular, the authorities must take the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89).
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  In particular, the authorities must take the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see concerning autopsies, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; concerning witnesses, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and concerning forensic evidence, for example, Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, [Section 4], § 89).

 
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 25964/02

  POZNAKHIRINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in cases raising issues similar to the ones in the present case (see, among many other authorities, Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, ECHR 2002-III, or Poznakhirina v. Russia, no. 25964/02, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00

  ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  Nor has she relied on any independent sources to confirm that on the date in question there was an attack by federal forces resulting in the damage alleged (see, by contrast, Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, §§ 28 and 111-115, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 30788/02

  UMAROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  It observes that similar complaints concerning the destruction of property during the conflict in Chechnya were examined in the case of Umarov v. Russia and found inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate them (see Umarov v. Russia (dec.), no. 30788/02, 18 May 2006).
• EGMR, 09.10.1979 - 6289/73

  AIREY v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2008 - 21539/02

  The Court, bearing in mind that the Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see, for example, Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32), would not exclude the possibility that in certain circumstances Article 6 § 1 of the Convention might require the domestic courts to assist the most vulnerable party to the proceedings in collecting evidence in order to enable that party to submit argument properly and satisfactorily so that the principle of fairness is respected.

• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 11456/05

  GURURYAN v. ARMENIA

  It points out, however, that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be required to resort to enforcement proceedings in order to have it executed (see Metaxas v. Greece, no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004; Koltsov, cited above, § 16; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 89, ECHR 2006-V; Cooperativa Agricola Slobozia-Hanesei v. Moldova, cited above, § 20; and Trapeznikova v. Russia, no. 21539/02, § 93, 11 December 2008).