Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  UDAYEVA AND YUSUPOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 No violation of Art. 2 (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  The Court observes that in previous cases it has found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by the Court (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

  The latter approach is exercised by the Court in view of the continuous nature of the psychological suffering of the applicants whose relatives disappeared and the applicants' inability for a prolonged period of time to find out what happened to them (see, among many other authorities, Bazorkina, cited above, § 141; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 166, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  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 ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 30949/96

  YASIN ATES v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  In this regard, the Court refers to its practice by which the application of Article 3 is usually not extended to the relatives of persons who have been killed by the authorities in violation of Article 2 (see Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005) or to cases of unjustified use of lethal force by State agents (see Isayeva and Others, cited above, § 229), as opposed to the relatives of the victims of enforced disappearances.

 
• EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

  TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  When, as in the instant case, the respondent Government have exclusive access to information able to corroborate or refute the applicants' allegations, any lack of cooperation by the Government without a satisfactory explanation may give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations (see Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  The latter approach is exercised by the Court in view of the continuous nature of the psychological suffering of the applicants whose relatives disappeared and the applicants' inability for a prolonged period of time to find out what happened to them (see, among many other authorities, Bazorkina, cited above, § 141; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 166, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 32, Series A no. 336, and Avsar, cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.12.2010 - 36542/05

  In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 56765/08

  INDERBIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  As for the present case, even though the Court does not doubt that the tragic death of her sisters caused the applicant profound suffering, it nonetheless, owing to the instantaneous nature of the incident, does not find that it amounts to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for a similar situation, Udayeva and Yusupova v. Russia, no. 36542/05, §§ 82-83, 21 December 2010).