Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (13)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  It reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between damages claimed by applicants and a violation of the Convention, and that this may, where appropriate, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings in the event of a violation of Article 2. The Court further finds that the loss of earnings applies to close relatives of the deceased, including spouses, elderly parents and children who are minors (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 213, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; and Viasu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, § 79, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  Such an investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in the case at hand was or was not justified in the circumstances (see, for example, Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 87, Reports 1998-I) and to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III).

 
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  As the Court's judgments are essentially declaratory, the respondent State remains free, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to choose the means by which it will discharge its legal obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court's judgment (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 17.02.2004 - 39748/98

  MAESTRI c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; and Viasu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, § 79, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 22.12.2008 - 46468/06

  ALEKSANYAN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  In other exceptional cases, where the very nature of the violation found is such as to leave no real choice between measures capable of remedying it, the Court may decide to indicate only one such measure (see Abbasov v. Azerbaijan, no. 24271/05, § 37, 17 January 2008, and Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, § 239, 22 December 2008).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  To sum up, the Court finds that in the context of the present case it is incumbent on the Committee of Ministers, acting under Article 46 of the Convention, to continue to address the issue of what may be required of the respondent Government by way of compliance, through both individual and general measures (see also McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, § 145, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 75951/01

  VIASU c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  It follows, inter alia, that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and to make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore, as far as possible, the situation existing before the breach (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; and Viasu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, § 79, 9 December 2008).
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 27602/95

  ULKU EKINCI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 29361/02

  KUKAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 24271/05

  ABBASOV v. AZERBAIJAN