Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SALATKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 2) MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits Preliminary objection not necessary to examine (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Loss of victim status (Art. 2) No violation of Art. 38-1-a (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.09.2007 - 17945/03
• EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 17945/03

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 17945/03

  In a case where the application raises issues of the effectiveness of the investigation, the documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Court's proper examination of the complaint both at the admissibility and at the merits stage (see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 71, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 28114/95

  DALBAN v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 17945/03

  The Court reiterates that, according to its case law, the applicant may lose the status of "victim" in instances where "the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention" (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 17945/03

  The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 183, 24 February 2005).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 17945/03

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 17945/03

  The Court reiterates that Article 13 of the Convention guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order, where there is an "arguable claim" of a violation of a substantive Convention provision (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2008 - 17945/03

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivations of life to the most careful scrutiny, particularly where deliberate lethal force is used, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, §§ 146-50; Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus, judgment of 9 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI, pp. 2097-98, § 171; and OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 78, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 25732/05

  KRIVOVA v. UKRAINE

  In the specific context of establishing State liability for breaches of Article 2, it has previously found that successful civil or administrative proceedings were sufficient to deprive the applicant of his or her victim status (see Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 76973/01, 28 November 2006; and more recently, Salatkhanovy v. Russia, no. 17945/03, §§ 75-78, 16 October 2008).
• EGMR, 20.09.2011 - 27294/08

  KONCZELSKA v. POLAND

  In the specific context of establishing State liability for breaches of Article 2, it has previously found that successful civil or administrative proceedings were sufficient to deprive the applicant of his or her victim status (see Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I; Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain (dec.), no. 76973/01, 28 November 2006; and, more recently, Salatkhanovy v. Russia, no. 17945/03, §§ 75-78, 16 October 2008).