Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+2 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) 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 ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Makayeva v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  The Court has to establish firstly whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02

  GONGADZE c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  The Court has previously found that negligence displayed by the investigating or supervising authorities in the face of real and imminent threats to an identified individual's life emanating from State agents, such as police, who were acting clearly outside the scope of their legal duties, might entail a violation of the positive obligation to protect life (see Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 170, ECHR 2005-XI, and Turluyeva, cited above, § 100).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 55; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010-... (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 3678/06

  DZHABRAILOVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  In such circumstances it would be artificial to impose a particular time-limit for a claim under Article 2 to be considered; while all elements of the case should be taken into account, there is enough evidence to suggest that the victims of disappearances often do not survive for very long after the abductions (see, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 83, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, §§ 91-92, 10 May 2007; and Dzhabrailovy v. Russia, no. 3678/06, § 65, 20 May 2010).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 39358/05

  TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 55; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010-... (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  The Court has to establish firstly whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicant's representatives were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).