Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 ...

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  Against this background the Court is not convinced that they could effectively have challenged the decision of 13 June 2004 before the domestic courts, as suggested by the Government (see Kantyrev v. Russia, no. 37213/02, § 43, 21 June 2007, and Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 29, 2 October 2008).

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy, cited above, § 64; Aydin v. Germany, no. 16637/07, §§ 83-84, 27 January 2011; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 94-96, ECHR 1999-V; and, more recently, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, §§ 106-08, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), and Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 44, 2 October 2008).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy, cited above, § 64; Aydin v. Germany, no. 16637/07, §§ 83-84, 27 January 2011; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 94-96, ECHR 1999-V; and, more recently, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, §§ 106-08, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), and Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 44, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  It observes that the requirements of an investigation and the undeniable difficulties inherent in the fight against crime cannot justify placing limits on the protection to be afforded in respect of the physical integrity of individuals (see Tomasi, cited above, § 115, and Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, §§ 38-40, Series A no. 336).

 
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 16637/07

  Meinungsfreiheit bei der Selbsterklärung für die PKK (Auslegung von …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy, cited above, § 64; Aydin v. Germany, no. 16637/07, §§ 83-84, 27 January 2011; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 94-96, ECHR 1999-V; and, more recently, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, §§ 106-08, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), and Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 44, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  However, in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation into suspicious deaths was ineffective in that it lacked sufficient objectivity and thoroughness, and where the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including the civil remedies suggested by the Government, was consequently undermined, the Court finds that the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 185, 24 February 2005; Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 202, 18 January 2007, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  Accordingly, their complaint under Article 13 that they had no effective remedies in relation to the complaint under Article 8 must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 3 and of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02

  MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy, cited above, § 64; Aydin v. Germany, no. 16637/07, §§ 83-84, 27 January 2011; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 94-96, ECHR 1999-V; and, more recently, Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia, no. 839/02, §§ 106-08, ECHR 2008-... (extracts), and Akulinin and Babich v. Russia, no. 5742/02, § 44, 2 October 2008).
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  CHITAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  However, in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation into suspicious deaths was ineffective in that it lacked sufficient objectivity and thoroughness, and where the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including the civil remedies suggested by the Government, was consequently undermined, the Court finds that the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 185, 24 February 2005; Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 202, 18 January 2007, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  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 McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  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 McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 97, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69481/01

  BAZORKINA v. RUSSIA