Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOYCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  The investigation must be adequate in the sense that it is capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 172).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force, either by State officials or private individuals (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999-IV; Branko Toma?.ic and Others, cited above, § 62; Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 169, 14 April 2015; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 230, ECHR 2016).

 
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13

  NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  This involves a primary duty on the part of the State to adopt and implement a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life (see, for instance, mutatis mutandis, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 115, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII and Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 89, ECHR 2004-XII; Nicolae Virgiliu Tanase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, § 135, 25 June 2019; and Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, § 157, 15 June 2021).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II, and Mezhiyeva v. Russia, no. 44297/06, § 72, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  In this connection the Court reiterates that it has already found such explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by it (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force, either by State officials or private individuals (see Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 103, ECHR 1999-IV; Branko Toma?.ic and Others, cited above, § 62; Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 169, 14 April 2015; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 230, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  PEREVEDENTSEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  MOSENDZ v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  BEKER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 13094/02

  HASAN ÇALISKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 30677/10

  DURDU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  MEZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Russland wegen brutaler Folter verurteilt
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 40860/04

  YASEMIN DOGAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 13596/05

  TIKHONOVA v. RUSSIA

• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14

  DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court further reiterates that its task is not normally to review the relevant law and practice in abstracto, but to determine whether the manner in which they were applied to, or affected, the applicant or the deceased gave rise to a violation of the Convention (see Boychenko v. Russia, no. 8663/08, § 85, 12 October 2021).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  LYUBOV VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA

  I wrote a joint concurring opinion with judge Lemmens in the case of Boychenko v. Russia (no. 8663/08, 12 October 2021) specifically to indicate that, in its judgments addressing this endemic and structural problem, the Court must go deeper in its analysis of the root causes.
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 60844/11

  DAURBEKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Thus, no investigative activities were carried out during the crucial opening period of the inquiries (see, for example, Boychenko v. Russia, no. 8663/08, § 98, 12 October 2021).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 2303/12

  MANUKYAN v. ARMENIA

  Substantive limb 17. The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Mosendz v. Ukraine (no. 52013/08, §§ 90-93, 17 January 2013), Perevedentsevy v. Russia (no. 39583/05, §§ 91-94, 24 April 2014), Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 30500/11, §§ 64-68, 1 June 2017) and most recently in Boychenko v. Russia (no. 8663/08, §§ 76-80, 12 October 2021, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 69997/11

  GVOZDEVA v. RUSSIA

  For a summary of the applicable general principles, see Boychenko v. Russia (no. 8663/08, §§ 76-84, 12 October 2021) and Khabirov v. Russia (no. 69450/10, §§ 86-96, 12 October 2021).