Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56529) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
NAKAYEV v. RUSSIA
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed ...
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (7)
- EGMR, 01.10.2002 - 37645/97
SAWICKA v. POLAND
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05
The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far that they have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V, and Sawicka v. Poland, no. 37645/97, § 54, 1 October 2002). - EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99
MAKARATZIS c. GRECE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05
This is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Article 2, which protects the right to life in situations where potentially lethal force is employed, notwithstanding the fact that as a result of subsequent medical interventions the applicant's life has been saved (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007). - EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05
This is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Article 2, which protects the right to life in situations where potentially lethal force is employed, notwithstanding the fact that as a result of subsequent medical interventions the applicant's life has been saved (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).
- EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93
AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05
The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government, and if they fail in their arguments issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II; ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005; Goygova v. Russia, no. 74240/01, § 94, 4 October 2007; and Goncharuk, cited above, § 80). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05
In so far as the Government mentioned Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observes that in previous cases it has found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by it (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII). - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05
The Court reiterates that 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 of the Convention 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 McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324, and Kaya v. Turkey, 19 February 1998, § 86, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I). - EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 34884/97
BOTTAZZI c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 29846/05
The Court may make an award in respect of costs and expenses in so far that they have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97, § 30, ECHR 1999-V, and Sawicka v. Poland, no. 37645/97, § 54, 1 October 2002).
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40001/08
ABDULKHADZHIYEVA AND ABDULKHADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA
It is true that the applicants did not lose their lives in the attack, but the Court has held before that the requirements of Article 2 apply to an attack where the victim survives but which, because of the lethal force used, by its very nature put his or her life at risk (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Makhauri v. Russia, no. 58701/00, § 117, 4 October 2007; Nakayev v. Russia, no. 29846/05, § 58, 21 June 2011; and Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).