Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANOWIEC ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Exception préliminaire retenue (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis) Partiellement irrecevable Non-violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant Traitement inhumain) (Volet matériel) Violation de l'article 38 - Examen ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis) Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JANOWIEC AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case and ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (5)

• faz.net (Pressebericht, 21.10.2013)

  Angehörige von Katyn-Opfern scheitern mit Klage

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• sueddeutsche.de (Pressebericht, 21.10.2013)

  Massaker von Katyn: Opfer-Angehörige scheitern mit Klage gegen Moskau

• taz.de (Pressebericht, 22.10.2013)

  Opferangehörige scheitern mit Klage

• juraforum.de (Kurzinformation)

  Aufklärung des Katyn-Massakers an Tausenden Polen bleibt im Dunkeln

Besprechungen u.ä.

• verfassungsblog.de (Entscheidungsbesprechung)

  EGMR schafft sich das blutige 20. Jahrhundert vom Hals

In Nachschlagewerken

• Wikipedia (Wikipedia-Eintrag mit Bezug zur Entscheidung)

  Massaker von Katyn

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 55508/07
• EGMR, 16.04.2012 - 55508/07
• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07, 29520/09, 29420/09

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (41)

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 253-254, ECHR 2004-III; Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI; and Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 70, ECHR 1999-IV).

  On the other, it raises certain suspicions about the finding concerning Articles 2 and 3. In other instances, where a State's failure to submit information to the Court resulted in a finding of a breach of Article 38, the Court associated that failure with "the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations" regarding the other Articles invoked (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI, and Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, nos. 57953/00 and 37392/03, § 122, 21 June 2007).

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57950/00

  ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  In Article 2 cases, the Court recognises not only surviving parents, spouses, children and siblings as victims, but also uncles and aunts, grandchildren and in-laws (see, for example, Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, § 201, 24 February 2005, and Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, § 131, 12 October 2006).

  Under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court requires a thorough and effective investigation whenever an individual is killed or is presumed to have been killed by State agents (Article 2, see Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 163 and 166-67, ECHR 2011, and Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, §§ 117-19, 27 July 2006; see also Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  VELKHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  On the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

  In a series of Chechen cases in which the applicants had not witnessed the killing of their relatives but had found out about their deaths only on discovery of their bodies, the Court considered that no separate finding of a violation of Article 3 was necessary, given that it had already found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects (see Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

 
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  TANGIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  On the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

  In a series of Chechen cases in which the applicants had not witnessed the killing of their relatives but had found out about their deaths only on discovery of their bodies, the Court considered that no separate finding of a violation of Article 3 was necessary, given that it had already found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects (see Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 38693/04

  SAMBIYEV AND POKAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  On the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

  In a series of Chechen cases in which the applicants had not witnessed the killing of their relatives but had found out about their deaths only on discovery of their bodies, the Court considered that no separate finding of a violation of Article 3 was necessary, given that it had already found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects (see Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69481/01

  BAZORKINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  It can also result from the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or from the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, where this attitude may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, in particular, Açıs v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, §§ 36 and 51-54, 1 February 2011; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

  Under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court requires a thorough and effective investigation whenever an individual is killed or is presumed to have been killed by State agents (Article 2, see Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, §§ 163 and 166-67, ECHR 2011, and Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, §§ 117-19, 27 July 2006; see also Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  On the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

  Nevertheless, the Court has considered a separate finding of a violation of Article 3 to be justified in situations of confirmed death where the applicants were direct witnesses to the suffering of their family members (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 204, 14 March 2013, where the applicant witnessed the slow death of her son who was in detention, without being able to help him; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 190, 29 March 2011, where a violation of Article 3 was found in respect of an applicant who had witnessed the killing of his entire family, but no violation was found in respect of other applicants who had only later found out about the killings; Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008, where the applicants were unable to bury the dismembered and decapitated bodies of their children in a proper manner; Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  The Government submitted at the outset that, for an issue under Article 3 to arise in respect of the relatives of the persons killed or missing, two elements must be shown to exist: (1) the applicants must have endured a period of uncertainty as to the fate of their relatives, and (2) the actions by the authorities must have aggravated their suffering during that period (here they referred to Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, §§ 114-115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

  It can also result from the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or from the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, where this attitude may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, in particular, Açıs v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, §§ 36 and 51-54, 1 February 2011; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 34056/02

  GONGADZE c. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  The Government further noted the absence of "special factors" which could have given the applicants" sufferings "a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of serious violations of human rights" (here they quoted Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 357-358, 18 June 2002).

  It can also result from the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or from the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, where this attitude may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, in particular, Açıs v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, §§ 36 and 51-54, 1 February 2011; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  The Government further noted the absence of "special factors" which could have given the applicants" sufferings "a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of serious violations of human rights" (here they quoted Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI, and Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, §§ 357-358, 18 June 2002).

  It can also result from the failure of the authorities to respond to the quest for information by the relatives or from the obstacles placed in their way, leaving them to bear the brunt of the efforts to uncover any facts, where this attitude may be regarded as disclosing a flagrant, continuous and callous disregard of an obligation to account for the fate of the missing person (see, in particular, Açıs v. Turkey, no. 7050/05, §§ 36 and 51-54, 1 February 2011; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 200; OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 96, 24 January 2008; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, § 139, 27 July 2006; Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184, ECHR 2005-XI; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 219, ECHR 2005-VIII; Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002; and Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 98, ECHR 1999-IV).

• EGMR, 25.10.2011 - 33251/04

  TASHUKHADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.11.2001 - 35763/97

  AL-ADSANI c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 33810/07

  ASSOCIATION
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 28005/08

  SALAKHOV AND ISLYAMOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 57941/00

  MUSAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.06.2000 - 47634/99

  KADIKIS contre la LETTONIE
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04

  KHADZHIALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2006 - 23052/04

  KOLK ET KISLYIY c. ESTONIE
• EGMR, 05.04.2005 - 54825/00

  NEVMERZHITSKY v. UKRAINE
• EKMR, 20.07.1957 - 268/57

  X. c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

  ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 01.07.2003 - 29178/95

  FINUCANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  BITIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
• EGMR, 21.06.2007 - 57953/00

  BITIYEVA AND X v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 21080/05

  VAGAPOVA AND ZUBIRAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 23.09.1994 - 19823/92

  HOKKANEN v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 23016/04

  ER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 48804/99

  OSMANOGLU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 7050/05

  AÇIS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

• Generalanwalt beim EuGH, 14.12.2017 - C-331/16

  K. - Vorlage zur Vorabentscheidung - Unionsbürgerschaft - Richtlinie 2004/38/EG - …

  32 Hierzu hat der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (im Folgenden EGMR) im Urteil vom 21. Oktober 2013, Janowiec u. a. gegen Russland (CE:ECHR:2013:1021JUD005550807, § 150), auf das die französische Regierung in der mündlichen Verhandlung Bezug genommen hat, entschieden, dass schwere Verbrechen des internationalen Rechts wie Kriegsverbrechen, Völkermord oder Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit eine größere Dimension aufweisen als gewöhnliche Straftaten und "die Negierung der Grundlagen der [EMRK] selbst" darstellen.