Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 41318/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
GATSALOVA v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09
ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 41318/10
The facts of the case are for the most part identical to those described in the Court's judgments in Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 38450/05, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014) and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014), and may be summarised as follows.The Court further notes that that judgment, as well as the judgments in Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014), and Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014), concerned the same attack that took place in Nalchik on 13 October 2005 and the events that followed, and that the applicants in those cases raised similar complaints under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the domestic authorities" refusal to return the bodies of their deceased relatives pursuant to the decision of 15 May 2006.
The majority's decision not to carry out a separate examination of the Article 9 complaint follows the approach adopted in previous cases concerning substantially the same events, in which the Court examined the Russian authorities" refusal to return the bodies of the applicants" relatives under Article 8. The Article 9 complaints based on the same grounds were, in effect, subsumed under the Article 8 examination (see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 158, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Arkhestov and Others v. Russia, no. 22089/07, § 114, 16 January 2014; and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia, no. 7988/09, § 108, 16 January 2014).
- EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07
ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 41318/10
The facts of the case are for the most part identical to those described in the Court's judgments in Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 38450/05, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014) and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014), and may be summarised as follows.The Court further notes that that judgment, as well as the judgments in Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014), and Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014), concerned the same attack that took place in Nalchik on 13 October 2005 and the events that followed, and that the applicants in those cases raised similar complaints under Article 8 of the Convention with regard to the domestic authorities" refusal to return the bodies of their deceased relatives pursuant to the decision of 15 May 2006.
The majority's decision not to carry out a separate examination of the Article 9 complaint follows the approach adopted in previous cases concerning substantially the same events, in which the Court examined the Russian authorities" refusal to return the bodies of the applicants" relatives under Article 8. The Article 9 complaints based on the same grounds were, in effect, subsumed under the Article 8 examination (see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 158, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Arkhestov and Others v. Russia, no. 22089/07, § 114, 16 January 2014; and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia, no. 7988/09, § 108, 16 January 2014).
- EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05
SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 41318/10
The facts of the case are for the most part identical to those described in the Court's judgments in Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 38450/05, ECHR 2013 (extracts)), Arkhestov and Others v. Russia (no. 22089/07, 16 January 2014) and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia (no. 7988/09, 16 January 2014), and may be summarised as follows.Merits 38. The Government did not contest the applicant's allegations and referred to the Court's findings in its judgment in Sabanchiyeva and Others (no. 38450/05, ECHR 2013 (extracts)).
The majority's decision not to carry out a separate examination of the Article 9 complaint follows the approach adopted in previous cases concerning substantially the same events, in which the Court examined the Russian authorities" refusal to return the bodies of the applicants" relatives under Article 8. The Article 9 complaints based on the same grounds were, in effect, subsumed under the Article 8 examination (see Sabanchiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 38450/05, § 158, ECHR 2013 (extracts); Arkhestov and Others v. Russia, no. 22089/07, § 114, 16 January 2014; and Zalov and Khakulova v. Russia, no. 7988/09, § 108, 16 January 2014).
- EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 41754/98
JOHANNISCHE KIRCHE & PETERS contre l'ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 41318/10
As to the manner of burying the dead, the Court dealt specifically with that issue in Johannische Kirche and Peters v. Germany ((dec.), no. 41754/98, 10 July 2001). - EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 43835/11
Gesichtsschleier-Verbot rechtens
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 41318/10
As regards Article 9 itself, it is settled case-law that an act of worship or devotion that forms part of the practice of a religion or belief in a generally recognised form constitutes a "manifestation" of religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9 (see S.A.S. v. France [GC], no. 43835/11, § 55, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 48420/10, § 82, 15 January 2013).