Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PEREVEDENTSEVY v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Perevedentsevy v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (10)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  In all cases, however, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 88, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  The Court reiterates that where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, Article 2 entails a duty for the State to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response - judicial or otherwise - so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  In this connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity was not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII).

 
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  In this connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity was not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  The Court must first establish whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants" representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  In all cases, however, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 88, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings 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).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  In all cases, however, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 88, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  In this connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity was not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII).

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA

  For more details of the report see Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 70, 24 April 2014.

  The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Perevedentsevy v. Russia (no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014), and, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal ([GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 104-12, 31 January 2019), and Kurt v. Austria ([GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-160, 15 June 2021).

• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA

  For more details of the report see Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 70, 24 April 2014.

  The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014, and, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal [GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 104-12, 31 January 2019, and Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-60, 15 June 2021.

• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  LYUBOV VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA

  For more details of the report see Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 70, 24 April 2014.

  The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Perevedentsevy v. Russia (no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014), and, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal ([GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 104-12, 31 January 2019), and Kurt v. Austria ([GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-160, 15 June 2021).

 
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05

  MUSTAFA TUNÇ ET FECIRE TUNÇ c. TURQUIE

  Quant au premier point, la Cour observe que le procureur militaire n'avait aucun lien, hiérarchique ou autre, ni avec le principal suspect, ni avec les gendarmes en poste sur le site de Perenco, ni avec la gendarmerie centrale de Kocaköy (Tikhonova c. Russie, no 13596/05, § 82, 30 avril 2014, et Perevedentsevy c. Russie, no 39583/05, § 107, 24 avril 2014) ou même la gendarmerie en général.
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 30878/16

  SOARES CAMPOS c. PORTUGAL

  La Cour a déjà eu à traiter d'affaires portant sur le bizutage au sein des armées (voir, à titre d'exemple, les affaires Mosendz c. Ukraine (no 52013/08, 17 janvier 2013), Perevedentsevy c. Russie (no 39583/05, 24 avril 2014)).
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  BOYCHENKO v. RUSSIA

  In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 46863/09

  BARANSKA v. POLAND

  Thus, there is no indication that the hospital staff knew or ought to have known that the applicant's daughter posed a real and immediate risk of suicide (compare and contrast, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 93, ECHR 2001-III; Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 75, 5 July 2005; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, 24 April 2014; and Mitic v. Serbia, no. 31963/08, 22 January 2013).
• EGMR, 21.06.2022 - 2303/12

  MANUKYAN v. ARMENIA

  Substantive limb 17. The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Mosendz v. Ukraine (no. 52013/08, §§ 90-93, 17 January 2013), Perevedentsevy v. Russia (no. 39583/05, §§ 91-94, 24 April 2014), Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan (no. 30500/11, §§ 64-68, 1 June 2017) and most recently in Boychenko v. Russia (no. 8663/08, §§ 76-80, 12 October 2021, with further references).
• EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 28008/14

  KRIVOLUTSKAYA v. RUSSIA

  The right to participate in the proceedings requires that the procedures adopted ensure the requisite protection of the applicant's interests (compare, Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 118, 24 April 2014).
• EGMR, 10.01.2017 - 58402/09

  DEMIR v. TURKEY

  While the above-mentioned positive obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 8 are directly secured to anyone within the jurisdiction of the Contracting States (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 239, Series A no. 25, and Scordino and Others v. Italy (no. 1) (dec.), no. 36813/97, 27 March 2003), the States have a reinforced duty towards people who are under their exclusive control, such as conscripts or individuals carrying out compulsory military service (see, for instance, Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-41, 24 March 2009; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, §§ 93-94, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).