Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANOWIEC ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire retenue (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis) Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 38 - Examen contradictoire de l'affaire et procédure de règlement amiable Violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) ...

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Janowiec and Others v. Russia

  [06.10.2011]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 55508/07
• EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07, 29520/09
• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (18)

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  The Court emphasises that the finding of such a violation is not limited to cases where the respondent State has been held responsible for the disappearance but can arise where the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, amongst many authorities, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, § 164, and Gongadze, § 184, both cited above; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

  Those findings were based on the state of uncertainty the relatives had had to endure owing to their inability to find out the fate of their next-of-kin (see, among other cases, Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 324, 18 June 2002).

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02

  GONGADZE c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  The Government also contrasted the instant case with the case of Gongadze v. Ukraine (no. 34056/02, ECHR 2005-XI).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  The Court emphasises that the finding of such a violation is not limited to cases where the respondent State has been held responsible for the disappearance but can arise where the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, amongst many authorities, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, § 164, and Gongadze, § 184, both cited above; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  The Court emphasises that the finding of such a violation is not limited to cases where the respondent State has been held responsible for the disappearance but can arise where the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, amongst many authorities, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, § 164, and Gongadze, § 184, both cited above; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69481/01

  BAZORKINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  The Court emphasises that the finding of such a violation is not limited to cases where the respondent State has been held responsible for the disappearance but can arise where the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, amongst many authorities, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, § 164, and Gongadze, § 184, both cited above; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  It must therefore be accepted that there existed a strong family bond between those applicants and their fathers or, in case of Ms Wolk, husband, and that all the above applicants may claim to be victims of the alleged violation of Article 3 (see Açıs, cited above, § 53, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 112, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  An additional element contributing to the applicants" suffering had been the authorities" unjustified denial of access to the documents in case no. 159 which could shed light on the fate of their relatives, both at the domestic level and in the proceedings before the Court (here they referred to the Court's findings to the same effect in the case of Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 165, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  OSMANOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  The Court emphasises that the finding of such a violation is not limited to cases where the respondent State has been held responsible for the disappearance but can arise where the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, amongst many authorities, Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, § 164, and Gongadze, § 184, both cited above; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  LIU v. RUSSIA (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  Significant weight must, therefore, attach to the judgment of the domestic authorities, and especially of the national courts, who are better placed to assess the evidence relating to the existence of a national security threat" (see Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, 26 July 2011, § 85).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07

  The Court has consistently examined the question of procedural obligations under Article 2 separately from the question of compliance with the substantive obligation and, on several occasions, a breach of a procedural obligation has been alleged in the absence of any complaint as to the substantive aspect of this Convention provision (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § § 41-57, ECHR 2002-I; Byrzykowski v. Poland, no. 11562/05, §§ 86 and 94-118, 27 June 2006; and Brecknell, cited above, § 53).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 71463/01

  SILIH v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 24.06.2003 - 65831/01

  Schutz der Infragestellung der von den Nazis am jüdischen Volk begangenen …
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 20985/05

  ORBAN ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 12.07.2005 - 64320/01