Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) ...

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13

  The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather in the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13

  As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish firstly whether the costs and expenses were actually incurred and, secondly, whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13

  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention constitutes a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13

  The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention constitutes a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13

  The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather in the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 22698/09

  Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13

  Therefore, the Court considers that the lulls that occurred in the domestic investigation cannot be held against the applicants or be interpreted as constituting a failure to show due diligence and to comply with the six-month requirement (see Sagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 22698/09 and 31189/11, §§ 58-61, 8 December 2015).

• EGMR - 13920/12 (anhängig)

  BATALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  15. Application no. 12642/13 (Baysultanova and Others v. Russia).

  In respect of the applications Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Kudusov and Others v. Russia (no. 1978/13), Larsanova v. Russia (3083/13), Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (no. 3752/13) and Baysultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 12642/13) have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there "excessive or unexplained delays" on the applicants" part in submitting their complaints to the Court following the abduction of their relatives, or have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

  12642/13.