Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,13480) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MIRZOYAN v. ARMENIA
Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (englisch)
Sonstiges
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
MIRZOYAN v. ARMENIA
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10
- EGMR, 01.07.2020 - 57129/10
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 12.12.2001 - 52207/99
V. und B. B., Ž. S., M. S., D. J. und D. S. gegen Belgien, Dänemark, …
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10
A State's jurisdictional competence under Article 1 is primarily territorial (see Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 61 and 67, ECHR 2001-XII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 312, ECHR 2004-VII). - EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99
Transnistrien
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10
A State's jurisdictional competence under Article 1 is primarily territorial (see Bankovic and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, §§ 61 and 67, ECHR 2001-XII; Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 312, ECHR 2004-VII). - EGMR, 23.03.1995 - 15318/89
LOIZIDOU c. TURQUIE (EXCEPTIONS PRÉLIMINAIRES)
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10
That said, the Court has recognised in its case-law that, as an exception to the principle of territoriality, a Contracting State's jurisdiction under Article 1 may extend to acts of its authorities which produce effects outside its own territory (see Loizidou v. Turkey (preliminary objections), 23 March 1995, § 62, Series A no. 310; Loizidou v. Turkey (merits), 18 December 1996, § 52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI and Bankovic and Others, cited above, § 69). - EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 39541/98
DÖLEK c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10
The Court has previously held that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 97; Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, § 96, 2 October 2007; and Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, § 46, ECHR 2012). - EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 22999/06
POGHOSYAN ET BAGHDASARYAN c. ARMENIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 23.05.2019 - 57129/10
The Court has previously held that in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach should, in principle, be available as part of the range of redress (see Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 97; Dölek v. Turkey, no. 39541/98, § 96, 2 October 2007; and Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, § 46, ECHR 2012).