Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,36803) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MARINA ALEKSEYEVA v. RUSSIA
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (6) Neu Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00
Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05
In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII). - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05
The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings 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, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05
Where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, Article 2 entails a duty on the State to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response - judicial or otherwise - so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are suppressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).
- EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97
Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05
In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII). - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93
ILHAN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05
The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 148, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov, cited above, § 88). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05
The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 148, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov, cited above, § 88).
- 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, 30.06.2020 - 11967/12
MECIT c. TURQUIE
Il appartient dès lors au Gouvernement de rendre des comptes sur les blessures ou décès survenus dans l'armée (Beker c. Turquie, no 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 mars 2009, Mosendz c. Ukraine, no 52013/08, § 92, 17 janvier 2013, Baklanov c. Ukraine, no 44425/08, § 67, 24 octobre 2013, Marina Alekseyeva c. Russie, no 22490/05, § 121, 19 décembre 2013, et Metin Gültekin et autres c. Turquie, no 17081/06, § 33, 6 octobre 2015). - EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09
FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA
It would thus appear that the applicants, with a significant delay of about nine months, were granted victim status and had access to the case-file material, but only the material that concerned Pte R. and only at a late stage of the court proceedings against the latter, when the investigative stage had been completed (compare Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 130, 19 December 2013).
- EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 25835/10
PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA
The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for instance, Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 126, with further references, 19 December 2013). - EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 64774/09
NASIBULLIN v. RUSSIA
The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for instance, Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 126, with further references, 19 December 2013). - EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 51185/11
NEVOSTRUYEVA v. RUSSIA
The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for instance, Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 126, with further references, 19 December 2013).