Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55127) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MASNEVA v. UKRAINE
Art. 2, Art. 3 MRK
Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Masneva v. Ukraine
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (5) Neu Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV). - EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95
KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
For a positive obligation to arise, 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 which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 90, ECHR 2001-III, and Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, § 116, Reports 1998-VIII). - EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
The Government maintained that the present case was essentially different from the cases of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III); Orhan v. Turkey (no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002); Gongadze (cited above) and Imakayeva v. Russia (no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
- EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
An investigation will not be effective unless all the evidence is properly analysed and the conclusions are consistent and reasoned (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 131, 26 February 2004). - EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02
GONGADZE c. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
Further relevant domestic law is quoted and summarised in the judgments of Gongadze v. Ukraine (no. 34056/02, §§ 147-149, ECHR 2005-XI) and Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02, §§ 36-39, 4 April 2006). - EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02
SERGEY SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
Further relevant domestic law is quoted and summarised in the judgments of Gongadze v. Ukraine (no. 34056/02, §§ 147-149, ECHR 2005-XI) and Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02, §§ 36-39, 4 April 2006). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
The Government maintained that the present case was essentially different from the cases of Kurt v. Turkey (25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III); Orhan v. Turkey (no. 25656/94, 18 June 2002); Gongadze (cited above) and Imakayeva v. Russia (no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
Where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and, as a general rule, it is for those courts to assess the evidence before them (see Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07
The procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 is not an obligation of result, but of means (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 113, ECHR 2001-III).
- EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17860/17
GOLOBORODKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 56, 20 December 2011; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012). - EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 12991/10
MANDRYKA v. UKRAINE
- EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 3648/04
CAVIT TINARLIOGLU c. TURQUIE
À cet égard, l'on pourrait citer des cas relatifs aux expositions prolongées à des rayonnements radioactifs lors d'essais nucléaires (L.C.B. c. Royaume-Uni, 9 juin 1998, Recueil 1998-III) ou à l'amiante dans un chantier de réparation de navires (voir, par exemple, Brincat et autres, précité), aux problèmes de décompression liés aux opérations de forage sous-marin (Vilnes et autres c. Norvège, nos 52806/09 et 22703/10, 5 décembre 2013), aux risques inhérents à certaines missions confiées aux membres de la police (Masneva c. Ukraine, no 5952/07, § 61, 20 décembre 2011) ou de l'armée (Stoyanovi c. Bulgarie, no 42980/04, § 61, 9 novembre 2010, et Trofin, précitée), aux accidents survenus pendant l'inspection d'engins ferroviaires (Binisan c. Roumanie, no 39438/05, 20 mai 2014) ou le processus de nettoyage d'un four industriel (Dranganschi c. Roumanie (déc.), no 40890/04, § 3, 18 mai 2010), ou pendant l'accomplissement de tâches par des appelés (Yürekli c. Turquie, no 48913/99, 17 juillet 2008), aux accidents de chantier (Pereira Henriques c. Luxembourg, no 60255/00, 9 mai 2006) ou bien aux défaillances de contrôles de sécurité concernant les navires et leurs équipages (Leray et autres c. France (déc.), no 44617/98, 16 janvier 2001). - EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62439/12
KOTILAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
This entails above all a primary duty on the part of the State to adopt and implement a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life (see Öneryildiz, cited above, §§ 89-90, and Masneva v. Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 64, 20 December 2011). - EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 35431/21
LEZNYUK v. UKRAINE