Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GAYSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.08.2013 - 62235/09
• EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09
• EGMR - 62235/09 (anhängig)

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

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 11949/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, §§ 113-14, 6 July 2010, and El Masri, cited above, § 239).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 39358/05

  TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual's life from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 55; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  The Court has to first establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  The Court has to first establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicants" allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Medova, cited above, § 76, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual's life from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 55; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02

  GONGADZE c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  In addition, the Court has already found that negligence displayed by the investigating authorities in the face of real and imminent threats emanating from State agents, who were acting clearly outside their legal duties, might entail a violation of the positive obligation to protect life (see Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 170, ECHR 2005-XI and Turluyeva, cited above, § 100).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  Equally, the Court has found on several occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities" reaction and attitude to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 24027/07

  Babar Ahmad u.a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, §§ 113-14, 6 July 2010, and El Masri, cited above, § 239).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 58358/14

  ROMANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Having regard to the above, the Court finds that the delay in the submission of the documents in the present case, although regrettable, has not amounted to a failure to comply with Article 38 of the Convention (see Gaysanova v. Russia, no. 62235/09, §§ 144-46, 12 May 2016).