Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TIMERBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  Where the news of a missing person's death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period during which he or she has been deemed to have disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which the applicants have suffered the uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  In this connection the Court considers that such a situation gives rise to issues which go beyond a mere "irregular detention" in violation of Article 5. Such an interpretation is in keeping with the effective protection of the right to life, as afforded by Article 2, which ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention (see, among other authorities, Çakici, cited above, § 86, and Timurta?? v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 83, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10

  DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  The delays in opening the criminal cases, or the lulls in the proceedings, therefore cannot be interpreted as the applicants" failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months while the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  Whether a failure on the part of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation as to a detainee's fate, in the absence of a body, might also raise issues under Article 2 of the Convention will depend on all the circumstances of the case, and in particular on the existence of sufficient circumstantial evidence, based on specific evidence, from which it may be concluded to the requisite standard of proof that the detainee must be presumed to have died in custody (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 85, ECHR 1999-IV, and Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, § 131, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40001/08

  ABDULKHADZHIYEVA AND ABDULKHADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  The delays in opening the criminal cases, or the lulls in the proceedings, therefore cannot be interpreted as the applicants" failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months while the investigation was seemingly dormant).

• EGMR - 59117/11 (anhängig)

  OZDAMIROVA AND BAKRIYEVA v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

  Application no. (17499/12 Tasuyev and Others v. Russia)}}.

  The applicants in all the applications, save for those in Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) and Tayubova v. Russia (no. 20191/12), complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State's failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents.

  The applicants in all the applications complain, in essence, under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention; the applicants in Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11) and Magomadova v. Russia (no. 67274/13) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention; the applicants in Mukhtarova and Others v. Russia (no. 13916/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention; and the applicants in Tasuyev and Others (no. 17499/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.

  The first applicant in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) complains under Articles 3, 5 and 13, in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, that State agents tortured him and unlawfully deprived him of liberty for the period of time stated in the Appendix and that no effective investigation into the matter was carried out.

  The applicants in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) complain of a violation of their right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the unlawful seizure of the car by the abductors.

  In respect of the applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), Chatuyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3765/13) and Magomadova v. Russia (67274/13), have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on the part of the applicants "excessive or unexplained delays" in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

  In respect of all the applications, except for applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) and Tayubova v. Russia (no. 20191/12), has the applicants" mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, and the authorities" alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearances been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?.

  In respect of Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), was the first applicant deprived of his liberty during the period of time listed in the appendix and subjected to ill-treatment by State agents, contrary to the provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention?.

  In respect of Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), were the applicants deprived of their property, contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in the course of the abduction of their relative?.

  (a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants" allegations that their missing relatives and the first applicant in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) were abducted by State servicemen;.

  (b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants" complaints about the disappearance of their missing relatives and the complaint of the first applicant in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) regarding his alleged deprivation of liberty and ill-treatment, in chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;.

  17499/12.