Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SHUMKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Shumkova v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 28341/95

  ROTARU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  The Government noted that, in accordance with the Court's case-law, in order for costs to be included in an award under Article 41 of the Convention, it must be established that they had been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum (see Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no. 28341/95, § 86, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 148, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov, cited above, § 88).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 148, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov, cited above, § 88).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  The Court reiterates that where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, Article 2 entails a duty for the State to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response - judicial or otherwise - so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  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, 19.03.2020 - 41603/13

  FABRIS ET PARZIALE c. ITALIE

  Dans tous les cas où un détenu décède dans des conditions suspectes et où la cause de ce décès est susceptible d'être rattachée à une action ou à une omission des agents ou des services publics, les autorités ont l'obligation de mener d'office une « enquête officielle et effective'de nature à permettre d'établir la cause de la mort et, le cas échéant, d'identifier les éventuels responsables de celle-ci et d'aboutir à leur punition ; il s'agit essentiellement, au travers d'une telle enquête, d'assurer l'application effective des lois internes qui protègent le droit à la vie et, dans les affaires où des agents ou organes de l'État sont impliqués, de garantir que ceux-ci aient à rendre des comptes au sujet des décès survenus sous leur responsabilité (De Donder et De Clippel, précité, §§ 61 et 85 ; voir, également, Mahmut Kaya c. Turquie, no 22535/93, §§ 106-107, CEDH 2000-III, Ilhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, § 63, CEDH 2000-VII, McKerr c. Royaume-Uni, no 28883/95, § 148, CEDH 2001-III, Kelly et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 30054/96, § 114, 4 mai 2001, Shumkova c. Russie, no 9296/06, § 109, 14 février 2012, et Volk, précité, § 98).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

  It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 89, 14 February 2012; and Çoselav v. Turkey, no. 1413/07, § 53, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 14.09.2023 - 2264/12

  AINIS AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Such an obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, bearing in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources (see, among others, Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 82, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 90, 14 February 2012).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 47095/09

  MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 89, 14 February 2012; and Çoselav v. Turkey, no. 1413/07, § 53, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 46190/13

  CASTRO ET LAVENIA c. ITALIE

  Il ne ressort pas des documents produits devant elle que l'équipe médicale ou le personnel de la prison aient, par négligence, omis d'identifier de tels troubles (voir, mutatis mutandis, Volk, précité, § 86 ; voir également, a contrario, Keenan, précité, § 94, Renolde, précité, § 122, De Donder et De Clippel, précité, §§ 73 et 75-77, et Shumkova c. Russie, no 9296/06, § 93, 14 février 2012).
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  FANZIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Such an obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not impose an impossible or disproportionate burden on the authorities, bearing in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources (see, among others, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 219, ECHR 2010 (extracts); Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 82, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 90, 14 February 2012).
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 69460/12

  SHURIYYA ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 89, 14 February 2012; and Çoselav v. Turkey, no. 1413/07, § 53, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 60867/08

  SHANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  In order to judge the respondent State's responsibility for the well-being of a detainee with suicidal tendencies, the Court must establish that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life and health of the identified individual and, if so, that they failed to take the necessary precautionary measures in order to diminish the opportunities for self-harm (see Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, §§ 82-83, ECHR 2008 (extracts), and Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, §§ 90-91, 14 February 2012).
• EGMR, 06.10.2016 - 58656/10

  GORYAYEVA v. UKRAINE

  As to the present case, the applicant's son had never been diagnosed as suffering from any psychiatric condition, nor does it appear from the information concerning his medical condition that there was any omission on the part of medical staff or prison personnel in identifying such a condition (see, by contrast, Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 93, 14 February 2012; Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 122, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Keenan, cited above, § 94).
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 32432/13

  SELLAL c. FRANCE

  L'expert a dès lors estimé que le dossier d'A.S., pris dans son ensemble, ne comportait pas vraiment d'éléments qui auraient pu faire craindre un tel risque, rappelant que le patient avait réfuté avoir des idées suicidaires, en juin 2000 (voir, a contrario, Shumkova c. Russie, no 9296/06, § 93, 14 février 2012).
• EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 62120/09

  VOLK v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 1413/07

  ÇOSELAV v. TURKEY