Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MOSENDZ v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (19)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  It is to be noted that in a number of cases the Court has considered that the Contracting States" positive obligations flowing from this provision may even arise where the risk to a person derived from self-harm, including the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide (see and compare with Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 90, ECHR 2001-III, and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 89, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 45661/99

  CARABULEA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  Secondly, an award of compensation to the applicant is required where appropriate or, at least, the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the ill-treatment or death (see, for example, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010, with further references, and Carabulea v. Romania, no. 45661/99, § 165, 13 July 2010).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  The Court is not concerned with reaching any findings as to guilt or innocence in that sense (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 284, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 170-173, Series A no. 324; and Putintseva v. Russia, no. 33498/04, § 62, 10 May 2012).

 
• EGMR, 29.04.2002 - 2346/02

  Vereinbarkeit der strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Beihilfe zum Selbstmord mit der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  The Government referred in this connection to the case of Pretty v. the United Kingdom, in which the Court held that "[Article 2] is unconcerned with issues to do with the quality of living or what a person chooses to do with his or her life" (no. 2346/02, § 39, ECHR 2002-III).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  The Court is not concerned with reaching any findings as to guilt or innocence in that sense (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 284, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts); McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 170-173, Series A no. 324; and Putintseva v. Russia, no. 33498/04, § 62, 10 May 2012).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  It is to be noted that in a number of cases the Court has considered that the Contracting States" positive obligations flowing from this provision may even arise where the risk to a person derived from self-harm, including the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of what appears to be a suicide (see and compare with Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 90, ECHR 2001-III, and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 89, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 24.09.2002 - 27824/95

  POSTI AND RAHKO v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  According to the Court's case-law, the concept of a "continuing situation" refers to a state of affairs in which there are continuing activities by or on behalf of the State which render the applicant a victim (see Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, § 39, ECHR 2002-VII).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  Where no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures complained of, or after the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on the applicant (see Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I).

• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 30255/09

  BITTÓ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Where the alleged violation constitutes a continuing situation against which no domestic remedy is available, such as application of rent-control scheme under the relevant legislation in the present case, the six-month period starts to run from the end of the situation concerned (see, among other authorities, Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 68, 17 January 2013).
• EGMR, 01.02.2024 - 35943/18

  PINTUS c. ITALIE

  En particulier, les personnes placées sous le contrôle des autorités sont en situation de vulnérabilité et les autorités ont le devoir de les protéger (Keenan c. Royaume-Uni, no 27229/95, § 91, CEDH 2001-III, et Mosendz c. Ukraine, no 52013/08, § 92, 17 janvier 2013).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  NANA MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).

 
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 30878/16

  SOARES CAMPOS c. PORTUGAL

  La Cour a déjà eu à traiter d'affaires portant sur le bizutage au sein des armées (voir, à titre d'exemple, les affaires Mosendz c. Ukraine (no 52013/08, 17 janvier 2013), Perevedentsevy c. Russie (no 39583/05, 24 avril 2014)).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14

  DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA

  The Court, as well as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see paragraph 28 above) has required the States to take appropriate measures to combat hazing practices in their armed forces (see Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 113, 17 January 2013, and Perevedentsevy, cited above, §§ 99-100).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  BOYCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, § 67, 24 October 2013; Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 121, 19 December 2013; and Metin Gültekin and Others v. Turkey, no. 17081/06, § 33, 6 October 2015).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 67351/13

  HOVHANNISYAN AND KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under the exclusive control of the authorities of the State, since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 4936/12

  TOMAC c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  À ce titre, la Cour note que le fils des requérants était étudiant dans un établissement subordonné au ministère de l'Intérieur, qu'il vivait en caserne et qu'il était soumis à un mode de vie similaire, du moins dans une large mesure, à celui des personnes accomplissant leur service militaire obligatoire (voir, pour ce qui est du contrôle des autorités exercé sur les conscrits, Beker c. Turquie, no 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 mars 2009, et Mosendz c. Ukraine, no 52013/08, § 92, 17 janvier 2013).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 11967/12

  MECIT c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 2303/12

  MANUKYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  LYUBOV VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 19234/18 (anhängig)

  SHABRATSKYY AND SHABRATSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 48419/16 (anhängig)

  MUSINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR - 11103/18 (anhängig)

  PETRYK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 35523/06

  ISAYEVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  DEMIR v. TURKEY