Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOVSAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324, and Avsar, cited above, § 391).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336; and Avÿar, cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  In a number of cases concerning enforced disappearances in Chechnya the Court has found the Russian State authorities responsible for extra-judicial executions or disappearances of civilians in the Chechen Republic, even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Estamirov and Others, cited above; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates that it has adopted the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see Avÿar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  In this context, the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see Toÿcu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

  BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  In a number of cases concerning enforced disappearances in Chechnya the Court has found the Russian State authorities responsible for extra-judicial executions or disappearances of civilians in the Chechen Republic, even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Estamirov and Others, cited above; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01

  ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 14.06.2011 - 20303/07

  On that basis, it has concluded that the areas in question were "within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State" in view of military or security operations being conducted there and the presence of servicemen (see, mutatis mutandis, Akkum v. Turkey, cited above, § 211, and Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, § 82, 10 January 2008).

• EGMR, 26.02.2013 - 24589/04

  BOZKIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Where no State responsibility has been established, the Court usually does not find it necessary to examine the merits of a complaint under Article 13 separately, and therefore does not find a breach of that provision (see Movsayevy v. Russia, no. 20303/07, 14 June 2011, § 107).