Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  IGOR SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 22737/04

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  The Court reiterates that although in some situations compliance with the positive obligation to secure life entails resort to criminal-law remedies (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XII, as well as Al Fayed v. France §§ 73-78, and Railean, cited above, § 28), if the infringement of the right to life is not intentional, Article 2 does not necessarily require such remedies; the State may meet its obligation by affording victims a civil-law remedy, either alone or in conjunction with a criminal-law one, enabling any responsibility of the individuals concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Silih, cited above, § 194).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  The Court reiterates that although in some situations compliance with the positive obligation to secure life entails resort to criminal-law remedies (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XII, as well as Al Fayed v. France §§ 73-78, and Railean, cited above, § 28), if the infringement of the right to life is not intentional, Article 2 does not necessarily require such remedies; the State may meet its obligation by affording victims a civil-law remedy, either alone or in conjunction with a criminal-law one, enabling any responsibility of the individuals concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; and Silih, cited above, § 194).
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  OYAL v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  However, that remedy should exist not only in theory; it must operate effectively in practice, within a time-span allowing the case to be examined without unnecessary delay (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 53 in fine; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 105 in fine, 27 June 2006; Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, §§ 83 in fine and 95, ECHR 2008-...; Silih, cited above, § 195; G.N. and Others v. Italy, no. 43134/05, § 96, 1 December 2009; and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 74, 23 March 2010).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38501/02

  AL FAYED c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  In particular, such obligation indisputably applies in the context of designing a legislative framework for road traffic safety (see, for example, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; and Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 04.04.2018 - 43134/05

  G.N. ET AUTRES CONTRE L'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  However, that remedy should exist not only in theory; it must operate effectively in practice, within a time-span allowing the case to be examined without unnecessary delay (see Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 53 in fine; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, § 105 in fine, 27 June 2006; Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, §§ 83 in fine and 95, ECHR 2008-...; Silih, cited above, § 195; G.N. and Others v. Italy, no. 43134/05, § 96, 1 December 2009; and Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 74, 23 March 2010).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  In particular, such obligation indisputably applies in the context of designing a legislative framework for road traffic safety (see, for example, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; and Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  RAILEAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  In particular, such obligation indisputably applies in the context of designing a legislative framework for road traffic safety (see, for example, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; and Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 72).

• EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11

  VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE

  Examining the circumstances of the present case in light of the principles established in its case-law (see, in particular, Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, §§ 27-29, 5 January 2010, and Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012), the Court notes that the investigation into the death of the applicant's daughter has lasted more than nine years.
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 35493/10

  BUCHYNSKA c. UKRAINE

  The Court considers that the applicant has sustained a life-threatening injury bringing her complaint within the ambit of Article 2 of the Convention (see as a recent authority Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, §§ 42-44, 12 January 2012).
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 58347/08

  YERMAKOVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that it has examined a number of applications against Ukraine concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention (see Sergey Shevchenko (cited above); Lyubov Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 75726/01, 25 November 2010; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, 3 November 2011; Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, 3 March 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, 12 January 2012; and Kachurka v. Ukraine, no. 4737/06, 15 September 2011).