Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 89, 14 February 2012; and Çoselav v. Turkey, no. 1413/07, § 53, 9 October 2012).

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among other authorities, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 97-100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, §§ 289-91, ECHR 2003-V (extracts); see also in general on the standard and burden of proof, Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 310-314, 28 November 2017).

• EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8532/06

  GEPPA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 70, 3 February 2011; and Karsakova v. Russia, no. 1157/10, § 48, 27 November 2014).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal questions raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see, for instance, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014, and Gulyan v. Armenia, no. 11244/12, § 95, 20 September 2018).

 
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  SHUMKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 89, 14 February 2012; and Çoselav v. Turkey, no. 1413/07, § 53, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 23608/16

  PETROV AND X v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  An application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application in case of use of particularly vexatious, insulting, threatening or provocative language by the applicant directed, inter alia, against the respondent government or its Agent (see, for instance, Petrov and X v. Russia, no. 23608/16, § 74, 23 October 2018).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 70, 3 February 2011; and Karsakova v. Russia, no. 1157/10, § 48, 27 November 2014).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 1413/07

  ÇOSELAV v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  It is incumbent on the State to account for any injuries suffered in custody, an obligation which is particularly stringent when an individual dies (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 89, 14 February 2012; and Çoselav v. Turkey, no. 1413/07, § 53, 9 October 2012).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  In the context of Article 2, the Court has held that any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its capability of establishing the circumstances of the case or the person responsible is liable to fall foul of the required measure of effectiveness (see, for instance, Armani da Silva, v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 233 in fine, 30 March 2016).
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 1157/10

  KARSAKOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 70, 3 February 2011; and Karsakova v. Russia, no. 1157/10, § 48, 27 November 2014).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 6458/03

  WOLF-SORG c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  The conduct of the parties when seeking evidence may be taken into account (see Wolf-Sorg v. Turkey, no. 6458/03, § 63, 8 June 2010).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 11244/12

  GULYAN v. ARMENIA

• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  NANA MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  In the instant case, the Court finds no evidence in the material before it to support the hypothesis that V. Muradyan's life was taken intentionally (contrast Beker, cited above, §§ 45-54, and Lapshin v. Azerbaijan, no. 13527/18, §§ 110-20, 20 May 2021; see also, mutatis mutandis, Mi?¾igárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 89, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 2303/12

  MANUKYAN v. ARMENIA

  At the same time, and due to the authorities' own failure to conduct an adequate investigation into the matter, the material before the Court does not allow it to support the hypothesis that S. Manukyan's life was taken intentionally (contrast Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 45-54, 24 March 2009, and Lapshin v. Azerbaijan, no. 13527/18, §§ 110-20, 20 May 2021; see also, mutatis mutandis, Mi?¾igárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 89, 14 December 2010).