Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KOTELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  In particular, the 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, cited above, § 72).

  In cases of fatal traffic accidents or those resulting in serious injuries, the Court has applied the same approach requiring States to provide "an effective judicial system" (see Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Igor Shevchenko, cited above, § 56).

• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  The Court further notes that Article 2 of the Convention may also be applicable when there has been no loss of life, however, the circumstances of the case and the nature of inflicted injuries indicate that the applicant's life was in serious danger (see Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 42, 12 January 2012; and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  The Court held that in cases where negligence by a private individual resulted in the victim's death States were required to set up an effective independent judicial system so that the cause of death could be determined and those responsible made accountable (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, §§ 49 et seq., ECHR 2002-I).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 25732/05

  KRIVOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  The Court further notes that Article 2 of the Convention may also be applicable when there has been no loss of life, however, the circumstances of the case and the nature of inflicted injuries indicate that the applicant's life was in serious danger (see Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 45, 9 November 2010; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 42, 12 January 2012; and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  He did not use any special powers, weapons, tools or information conferred on him in connection with his position (see, by contrast, urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts); and Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, §§ 48-52, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38501/02

  AL FAYED c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  In particular, the 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, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 29400/05

  COMMUNIST PARTY OF RUSSIA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  The Court reiterates that it is not its task to substitute itself for the domestic courts and conduct a fresh assessment of evidence (see Communist Party of Russia and Others v. Russia, no. 29400/05, § 122, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 20.03.2012 - 26692/05

  C.A.S. AND C.S. v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  The present case should therefore be distinguished from cases concerning deliberate criminal acts by private individuals (see O'Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no. 35810/09, § 144, ECHR 2014 (extracts); C.A.S. and C.S. v. Romania, no. 26692/05, §§ 68 et seq., 20 March 2012; and Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, § 53, 31 May 2007).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  RAILEAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  In particular, the 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, cited above, § 72).

• EGMR, 08.11.2016 - 76805/11

  KRAULAIDIS v. LITHUANIA

  In particular, the examination of this case under Article 2 would have been far-fetched, as the factual circumstances of this case, where the applicant sustained a severe injury, although there was no threat to his life, and those of Kotelnikov v. Russia (no. 45104/05, 12 July 2016), which involved an alleged intent to kill the applicant, are different.

  [1] An even more troubling development is to apply the procedural limb of Article 2 for car accidents (even with dolus eventualis) (see Tuchin and Tuchina v. Ukraine (no. 40458/08, 26 May 2016) and even where the person survived the car accident, as in Kotelnikov v. Russia (no. 45104/05, 12 July 2016), where not even the presence of the Makaratzis criteria was considered and bodily injury is treated as death (see Makaratzsis v. Greece (no. 50385/99, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10

  SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Without knowledge of such crucial facts, it is impossible to assess properly the applicant's claim that the respondent State should be held responsible for the alleged breach of the traffic regulations on account of either negligent or deliberate conduct on the part of the AMV driver, who was either a military or police officer at the material time (see paragraph 14 above; contrast Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, §§ 125 and 129, 1 September 2016, and Kotelnikov v. Russia, no. 45104/05, §§ 93 and 94, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 16876/14

  SILINA c. RUSSIE

  S'agissant maintenant d'une « réparation civile adéquate ", elle constate, d'un côté, que la requérante a obtenu au niveau interne 715 EUR pour dommage moral dans une procédure relative à la responsabilité civile de l'employeur de S. (paragraphe 34 ci-dessus), mais elle estime que ce montant a été manifestement insuffisant pour enlever à l'intéressée la qualité de victime (Kotelnikov c. Russie, no 45104/05, §§ 109-110, 12 juillet 2016, et, pour un exemple récent, Zinchenko c. Russie [comité], no 65697/13, § 19, 16 juin 2020).

 
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 55084/17

  STEPANOV ET GLAZKOV c. RUSSIE

  S'agissant de la durée des enquêtes pénales, la Cour constate que les juridictions administratives ont qualifié la durée d'excessive, ont constaté des violations du droit à la procédure pénale dans un délai raisonnable et ont alloué aux requérants des sommes conséquentes à ce titre (paragraphe 20 ci-dessus et annexe 2 ; comparer avec l'affaire Kotelnikov c. Russie, no 45104/05, 12 juillet 2016, où le requérant ne disposait pas de tel recours administratif).
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  FERGEC v. CROATIA

  Given the circumstances of the present case, therefore, the Court accepts the national courts" findings that D.M. acted as an ordinary private individual not vested with any official powers (compare Kotelnikov v. Russia, no. 45104/05, § 93, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 49626/07

  TIKHOMIROVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a eu l'occasion d'examiner à maintes reprises, sur le terrain de l'article 2 de la Convention, des situations où une perte de vies humaines a résulté d'un accident de la circulation (voir, parmi d'autres, Kotelnikov c. Russie, no 45104/05, § 101, 12 juillet 2016, Basyuk c. Ukraine, no 51151/10, § 56, 5 novembre 2015, Ciobanu c. République de Moldova, no 62578/09, § 32, 24 février 2015, Starcevic c. Croatie, no 80909/12, § 56, 13 novembre 2014, Zubkova c. Ukraine, no 36660/08, § 35, 17 octobre 2013, Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012, Sergiyenko c. Ukraine, no 47690/07, § 48, 19 avril 2012, Igor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, Antonov c. Ukraine, no 28096/04, § 44, 3 novembre 2011, et Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 76, 24 mai 2011).