Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GOLUBEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  In determining whether the force used is compatible with Article 2, it may therefore be relevant whether a law-enforcement operation has been planned and controlled so as to minimise to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force or incidental loss of life (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 135-36, ECHR 2005-II (extracts), and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 150 and 194, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 73, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (see Kelly and Others, cited above, § 94, and, mutatis mutandis, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC] no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 63).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness (see Leonidis v. Greece, no. 43326/05, § 68, 8 January 2009, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  It reiterates in this respect its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  Where allegations are made under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention, however, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 113, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 43393/98

  MATKO v. SLOVENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  Although the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by those courts (see, mutatis mutandis, Matko v. Slovenia, no. 43393/98, § 100, 2 November 2006).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02

  MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  The procedural defects were thereby remedied and the capability of the investigation to establish the circumstances of the case was not undermined (see, by contrast, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, §§ 94 and 95, ECHR 2008-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 43326/05

  LEONIDIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 1062/03

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required standard of effectiveness (see Leonidis v. Greece, no. 43326/05, § 68, 8 January 2009, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV).

• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16

  RIBCHEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court, which is far removed from the events, must be extremely cautious about revisiting any of the choices that the authorities made in those respects with the wisdom of hindsight - something to be resisted even when examining whether the authorities have used force which was "more than absolutely necessary", where, as already noted, a much stricter standard applies (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 147, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, § 104, 13 March 2007; and Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, § 110, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Since McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom (27 September 1995, Series A no. 324) the Court has had to deal with a number of cases in which the police had used force, typically firearms, against armed or dangerous individuals (see, among other authorities, Andronicou and Constantinou, cited above, §§ 181-86 and 191-93; Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, §§ 79-83, 14 December 2000; Brady v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 55151/00, 3 April 2001; Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2004-XI; Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, §§ 138-52, ECHR 2005-II (extracts); Perk and Others v. Turkey, no. 50739/99, §§ 58-73, 28 March 2006; Halit Çelebi v. Turkey, no. 54182/00, §§ 49-52, 2 May 2006; Yüksel ErdoÄŸan and Others v. Turkey, no. 57049/00, §§ 91-101, 15 February 2007; Huohvanainen v. Finland, no. 57389/00, §§ 96-109, 13 March 2007; Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 280-82 and 288-89, ECHR 2007-II; Bakan v. Turkey, no. 50939/99, §§ 52-56, 12 June 2007; Ekrem v. Turkey, no. 75632/01, §§ 56-61, 12 June 2007; Usta and Others v. Turkey, no. 57084/00, §§ 51-61, 21 February 2008; Kasa v. Turkey, no. 45902/99, §§ 82-89, 20 May 2008; Gülen v. Turkey, no. 28226/02, §§ 33-39, 14 October 2008; Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, §§ 94-111, 17 December 2009; Wasilewska and Kalucka v. Poland, nos.
• EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 1441/10

  RAMAZANOVA ET ALEKSEYEV c. RUSSIE

  Les dispositions du code pénal concernant l'homicide, l'abus de pouvoir, la violation de domicile et la légitime défense sont résumées dans l'arrêt Golubeva c. Russie (no 1062/03, §§ 51-55, 17 décembre 2009).
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 24867/04

  FILIPOVI v. BULGARIA

  It is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a fact-finding tribunal where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, § 95, 17 December 2009, citing McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• EGMR, 10.05.2012 - 33498/04

  PUTINTSEVA v. RUSSIA

  While reiterating the importance of involving the next-of-kin of a deceased in the proceedings (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 109 and 133, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)), the Court is convinced, in the circumstances of the instant case and in particular in view of the applicant's close involvement in the investigation, that the defect arising from the authorities" failure to assign her victim status was thereby remedied and the capability of the investigation to establish the circumstances of the case was not undermined (see Golubeva v. Russia, no. 1062/03, § 91, 17 December 2009).