Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BITIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Struck out of the list 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. 5 Violation of Art. 13+2 ...

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  The Court reiterates that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, § 130-134, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  In such cases the Court would normally limit its findings to Article 2. However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 114, ECHR 2006-... (extracts), or Kukayev, cited above, § 107).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  In view of the Court's findings above with regard to Articles 2 and 5 as well as in respect of the applicants' complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment of their relatives under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants clearly had an arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  The investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III).

• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  The Court adopted a restrictive approach in situations where the person was taken into custody but later found dead following a relatively short period of uncertainty as to his fate (see Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III, and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 106, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

  SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Concernant les griefs relatifs à la souffrance morale formulés sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention par des proches de victimes alléguées d'opérations de sécurité menées par les autorités, la Cour a adopté une approche restrictive, déclarant que si un proche de « disparu'pouvait se prétendre victime d'un traitement contraire à l'article 3 (Kurt c. Turquie, 25 mai 1998, §§ 130-134, Recueil 1998-III), le même principe ne s'appliquait pas d'ordinaire aux situations où une personne avait été privée de liberté et par la suite retrouvée morte (voir, par exemple, Tanli c. Turquie, no 26129/95, § 159, CEDH 2001-III, Yasin Ates c. Turquie, no 30949/96, § 135, 31 mai 2005, et Bitieva et autres c. Russie, no 36156/04, § 106, 23 avril 2009).
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As regards complaints about moral suffering brought under Article 3 of the Convention by relatives of victims of security operations carried out by the authorities, the Court has adopted a restrictive approach, stating that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III; Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 106, 23 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 35746/11

  SARIBEKYAN AND BALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  In such cases the Court would normally limit its findings to Article 2. However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 105, 23 April 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 32427/16

  PETROSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  In such cases the Court would normally limit its findings to Article 2. However, if a period of initial disappearance is long it may in certain circumstances give rise to a separate issue under Article 3 (see Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 105, 23 April 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 62161/14

  KHOJOYAN AND VARDAZARYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  55508/07 and 29520/09, § 177, ECHR 2013; and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 105, 23 April 2009, with further references.
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07

  ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  As regards complaints about moral suffering brought under Article 3 of the Convention by relatives of alleged victims of security operations carried out by the authorities, the Court has adopted a restrictive approach, stating that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III; Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 106, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA

  As regards complaints about moral suffering brought under Article 3 of the Convention by relatives of alleged victims of security operations carried out by the authorities, the Court has adopted a restrictive approach, stating that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III; Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 106, 23 April 2009).