Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AZIYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 77626/01
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  The Court further notes that it has already found on a number of occasions that the provisions of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not preclude disclosure of documents from a pending investigation file, but rather set out a procedure for and limits to such disclosure (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 104, 26 January 2006, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

  The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in Chechnya (see, among other authorities, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007).

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives" accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...).

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives" accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands, without a satisfactory explanation, may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).

 
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  The passage of time will inevitably erode the amount and quality of the evidence available and the appearance of a lack of diligence will cast doubt on the good faith of the investigative efforts, as well as drag out the ordeal for the members of the family (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  The Court further notes that it has already found on a number of occasions that the provisions of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not preclude disclosure of documents from a pending investigation file, but rather set out a procedure for and limits to such disclosure (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 104, 26 January 2006, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in Chechnya (see, among other authorities, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

  BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in Chechnya (see, among other authorities, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, no. 40464/02, 10 May 2007; and Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  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, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147).