Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BARAKHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BARAKHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08

  The lack of a proper record of the applicant's arrest and detention on 10 and 11 January 2007 is therefore sufficient for the Court to find that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (compare Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 157, ECHR 2002-IV, and Menesheva, cited above, §§ 87-89).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08

  In respect of a person deprived of his liberty, any recourse to physical force which has not been made strictly necessary by his own conduct diminishes human dignity and is an infringement of the right set forth in Article 3 (see Sheydayev v. Russia, no. 65859/01, § 59, 7 December 2006, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 38, Series A no. 336).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08

  The Court has accepted that the next-of-kin or heir may in principle pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 97, ECHR 2014).

 
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 63638/09

  TURLUYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08

  Thus, the mere fact that appropriate steps were not taken to reduce the risk of collusion between alleged perpetrators amounts to a significant shortcoming in the adequacy of the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, § 330, ECHR 2007-II, and Turluyeva v. Russia, no. 63638/09, § 107, 20 June 2013).
• EGMR, 05.11.2013 - 36716/07

  MESUT DENIZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08

  Furthermore, the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny (see Mesut Deniz v. Turkey, no. 36716/07, § 52, 5 November 2013).
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 8516/08

  To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).

• EGMR, 14.09.2021 - 13918/06

  SAVENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that in determining this matter the decisive point is not whether the rights in question are transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs or the next of kin can in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, §§ 22-23, 17 January 2017; Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 19816/09

  BAMBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  Elle estime que, au vu des défauts qu'elle a constatés dans la conduite de l'enquête préliminaire ainsi que du temps écoulé entre la plainte initiale et l'ouverture de l'enquête pénale, le requérant n'est pas obligé d'attendre l'issue de l'enquête pénale ouverte le 29 janvier 2014 (Barakhoyev c. Russie, no 8516/08, § 38, 17 janvier 2017).
• EGMR, 06.12.2022 - 2463/12

  MNATSAKANYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court reiterates in this connection that in determining this matter the decisive point is not whether the rights in question are transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs or the next of kin can in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Ergezen, cited above, § 29; Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 86-87, 12 December 2017; and Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, §§ 22-23, 17 January 2017).

 
• EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 50423/08

  GHAVALYAN v. ARMENIA

  Thus, in cases where the direct victim has died after the application was lodged, the decisive factor is not whether the rights at issue are transferable to heirs willing to pursue an application, but whether the persons wishing to pursue the proceedings can claim a legitimate interest in seeking that the Court decide the case on the basis of the applicant's desire to use his individual and personal right to lodge a case before the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Vascenkovs v. Latvia, no. 30795/12, § 27, 15 December 2016; and Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, § 22, 17 January 2017, all of which concerned complaints under Article 5 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 42874/18

  BURIYEV v. RUSSIA

  With reference to the case-law on the matter (see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 35-37, 4 October 2016, and Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, §§ 22-23, 17 January 2017), and considering that the applicant died in the course of the proceedings before the Court, it can be concluded that Mrs Islamova has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application in the late applicant's stead and, therefore, has locus standi in the proceedings.
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 33938/08

  ANDRUSHCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  For its part, the Court reiterates that in determining this matter the decisive point is not whether the rights in question are transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs or the next of kin can in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, §§ 22-23, 17 January 2017; and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos. 45044/06 and 5 others, §§ 87 and 117, 12 December 2017).
• EGMR, 13.10.2022 - 73364/17

  ARDABYEVSKIY AND FARADZHEVA v. RUSSIA

  For its part, the Court reiterates that in determining this matter the decisive point is not whether the rights in question are transferable to the heirs wishing to pursue the procedure, but whether the heirs or the next of kin can in principle claim a legitimate interest in requesting the Court to deal with the case on the basis of the applicant's wish to exercise his or her individual and personal right to lodge an application with the Court (see Ergezen v. Turkey, no. 73359/10, § 29, 8 April 2014; Barakhoyev v. Russia, no. 8516/08, §§ 22-23, 17 January 2017; and Ksenz and Others v. Russia, nos.