Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NINA KUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KUTSENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  However, where a Contracting State has made adequate provision to secure high professional standards among health professionals and to protect the lives of patients, it cannot accept that matters such as error of judgment on the part of a health professional or negligent coordination among health professionals in the treatment of a particular patient are sufficient of themselves to call a Contracting State to account from the standpoint of its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention to protect life (see Powell v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 13423/09

  MEHMET SENTÜRK ET BEKIR SENTÜRK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  Having regard to all the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the applicant's son's situation in Fastiv Hospital constituted a de facto denial of health care having led to his death (see, mutatis mutandis, Mehmet Sentürk and Bekir Sentürk v. Turkey, no. 13423/09, § 88, ECHR 2013, with further references).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings also requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 38245/08

  R.P. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  Regardless of the possible interpretation of those submissions, the Court notes that the issue of the applicant's victim status concerns a matter of compatibility ratione personae, which goes to the Court's jurisdiction and does not depend on the existence of an objection by the Government to that effect (see, for example, R.P. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 38245/08, § 47, 9 October 2012, and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, § 70, ECHR 2016 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.07.2017 - 25114/11

  In the particular sphere of medical negligence, the procedural obligation under Article 2 has been interpreted by the Court as imposing an obligation on the State to set up an effective judicial system for establishing both the cause of death of an individual under the care and responsibility of health professionals and any responsibility on the part of the latter (see Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 49, ECHR 2002-I).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The Court does not consider it necessary to assess further whether any other guarantees of that Convention provision were satisfied by the Russian authorities during the investigation (see Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 154, 18 July 2017).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  As regards the sentencing, the Court has previously found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in cases where State officials had caused death by acts of police brutality and where the execution of sentences imposed on them had been suspended (see Ali and Ay?Ÿe Duran, cited above, §§ 70-72; Bekta?Ÿ and Özalp, cited above, § 50; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 47, 27 May 2010; and Külah and Koyuncu v. Turkey, no. 24827/05, § 60, 23 April 2013); or the sentence was enforced with a significant delay (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2319/14, §§ 31-33, 13 October 2016); or they were not punished owing to the punishment becoming time-barred (see Przemyk v. Poland, no. 22426/11, § 71, 17 September 2013, and Nina Kutsenko v. Ukraine, no. 25114/11, § 150, 18 July 2017); or the sentence was too lenient (see Przemyk, cited above, § 72, where a police officer was initially sentenced to four years' imprisonment for charges of battery resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to two years' imprisonment, and Yeter v. Turkey, no. 33750/03, § 68, 13 January 2009, where a police officer was initially sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for charges of torture resulting in death, and then the sentence was reduced to four years and two months' imprisonment and he served only nineteen days of it); or where the police officers who committed murder were not banned from public service (see Vazagashvili and Shanava, cited above, § 92, where two police officers convicted for aggravated murder of the applicant's son were sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment but could potentially join the law-enforcement system of the respondent State anew after they have served their prison sentences); or where the trial court suspended the pronouncement of the judgment for the offence of unlawful killing on the ground that it had not been intentional (see, for example, Kasap and Others v. Turkey, no. 8656/10, § 60, 14 January 2014, and Hasan Köse v. Turkey, no. 15014/11, § 37, 18 December 2018).