Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see Gülec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Ögur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, §§ 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see Gülec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Ögur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, §§ 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  The Government submitted that the preliminary investigation had not produced any evidence which would support the applicant's argument that her husband had been deprived of his life as a result of the "use of force" by a representative of the State (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, § 105).

 
• EGMR, 27.07.1998 - 21593/93

  GÜLEÇ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see Gülec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Ögur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, §§ 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see Gülec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Ögur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, §§ 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06

  The Government submitted that the investigation had been conducted by independent prosecution agencies (see Gülec v. Turkey, no. 21593/93, 27 July 1998, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, and Ögur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, 20 May 1999, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III) and that it had been prompt and expedient, having started on the very day of the explosion (see Cakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, §§ 80, 87, 106; Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, 28 March 2000, ECHR 2000-III, §§ 106-107).

• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  However, the Court notes that this aspect of the procedural obligation does not require applicants to have access to police files, or copies of all documents during an ongoing inquiry, or for them to be consulted or informed about every step (see Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, § 77, 27 November 2007; Mezhiyeva v. Russia, no. 44297/06, § 75, 16 April 2015; and Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos.
• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 58558/13

  WARESIAK c. POLOGNE

  b) l'épouse de la victime n'avait reçu aucune information sur les progrès de l'enquête ; elle n'avait pas pu bien examiner le dossier et aucune pièce ne lui avait été remise, qu'il s'agit de dépositions de témoins ou d'autres mesures d'instruction (Mezhiyeva c. Russie, no 44297/06, § 75, 16 avril 2015) ;.
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II, and Mezhiyeva v. Russia, no. 44297/06, § 72, 16 April 2015).

 
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  BOYCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II, and Mezhiyeva v. Russia, no. 44297/06, § 72, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II, and Mezhiyeva v. Russia, no. 44297/06, § 72, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10

  KHABIROV v. RUSSIA

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II, and Mezhiyeva v. Russia, no. 44297/06, § 72, 16 April 2015).