Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PISARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  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) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PISARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 42139/12

  The facts concerning the historical background of the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-92 and the subsequent events, are set out in Ilascu, Ivantoc, Lesco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004-VII), and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).

  The Moldovan Government referred to the Court's finding in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII) and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) to the effect that the Russian Federation had effective control over the territory of the breakaway region of Transdniestria and decisive influence over its authorities.

  43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), was not applicable in this case.

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 42139/12

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws safeguarding the right to life and, in those cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 137, ECHR 2002-IV).

  The applicants were not allowed to exercise any procedural rights and were not even informed about the discontinuation of the proceedings against V.K. The Court has stressed on many occasions that the involvement of the next of kin serves to ensure public accountability of the authorities and public scrutiny of their actions in such situations (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 140, ECHR 2002-IV, and Anusca cited above, § 39).

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 42139/12

  The obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see Çakici v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 42139/12

  The use of force, however, must be no more than "absolutely necessary" for the achievement of one of the purposes set out in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 94, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 42139/12

  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 Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 56, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  The requirement to allow for involvement of the victims can hardly be satisfied when victims of violations under Article 2 of the Convention or their next of kin have no possibility to participate in criminal proceedings against perpetrators of such violations (compare Ogur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III; Boboc and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 44592/16, § 53, 7 June 2022; Shavadze v. Georgia, no. 72080/12, § 35, 19 November 2020; Vazagashvili and Shanava, cited above, § 91; Iorga v. Moldova, no. 12219/05, §§ 35 and 36, 23 March 2010; and Pisari v. Moldova and Russia, no. 42139/12, § 59, 21 April 2015).
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 48841/11

  FILIN c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA ET RUSSIE

  Même si la deuxième hypothèse devait être suivie, la Cour remarque que le gouvernement moldave n'explique nullement comment la voiture des officiers transnistriens, avec le requérant à l'intérieur, avait pu franchir sans difficultés apparentes les postes de contrôles installés entre la zone contrôlée par les autorités moldaves et celle contrôlée par les autorités de la « RMT'(voir, pour une description des postes de contrôles, Pisari c. Moldova et Russie, no 42139/12, §§ 9-13, 21 avril 2015).