Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ALPATU ISRAILOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+2 Abs. 1, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Alpatu Israilova v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; and Nurmagomedov v. Russia, no. 30138/02, § 6, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and El Masri v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" [GC], no. 39630/09, § 233, 13 December 2012).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 43290/98

  McSHANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; and Nurmagomedov v. Russia, no. 30138/02, § 6, 7 June 2007).

 
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  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" reactions and attitudes 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, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  The Court reiterates that in situations such as the one at hand, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible explanation as to what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 13.04.2006 - 73225/01

  Gesetzlicher Richter gemäß Art. 6 EMRK (Recht auf ein faires Verfahren; Besetzung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; and Nurmagomedov v. Russia, no. 30138/02, § 6, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention is a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and El Masri v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" [GC], no. 39630/09, § 233, 13 December 2012).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  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" reactions and attitudes 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, 07.06.2007 - 30138/02

  NURMAGOMEDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  The expression "any form of pressure" must be taken to cover not only direct coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation of applicants or their legal representatives but also other improper indirect acts or contacts designed to dissuade or discourage them from pursuing a Convention remedy or having a "chilling effect" on the exercise of the right of individual petition by applicants and their representatives (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 130, ECHR 1999-IV, with further references; McShane v. the United Kingdom, no. 43290/98, § 151, 28 May 2002; Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, §§ 48-51, 13 April 2006; and Nurmagomedov v. Russia, no. 30138/02, § 6, 7 June 2007).
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 57953/00

  BITIYEVA AND X v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 15438/05

  It might be understandable that the applicant perceived direct contact with the law-enforcement bodies as threatening, in view of her experience and the overall security situation in the region, but such approach leaves the State authorities without appropriate recourse if they wish to investigate the complaints and to provide relief (see Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, nos. 57953/00 and 37392/03, § 166, 21 June 2007).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 31242/05

  VLADIMIR SOKOLOV v. RUSSIA

• EGMR - 7685/12 (anhängig)

  TIBILOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Having regard to the circumstances surrounding the arrest of A. Khachirov, A. Khugayev and S. Pliyev on 13 October 2008 by the Georgian authorities and their subsequent disappearance, has there been a violation of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Convention, these complaints being lodged by the applicants in their own name as well as on behalf of their missing relatives (compare, amongst others, Alpatu Israilova v. Russia, no. 15438/05, §§ 46-76, 14 March 2013)?.
• EGMR - 40279/11 (anhängig)

  TABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  1 and 2 in their own name as well as on behalf of their missing relative (compare, amongst others, Alpatu Israilova v. Russia, no. 15438/05, §§ 46-71, 14 March 2013)?.