Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2008,63096
EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,63096)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.09.2008 - 20755/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,63096)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. September 2008 - 20755/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,63096)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,63096) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    AKHMADOVA AND AKHMADOV v. RUSSIA

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13+2, Art. 13, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection dismissed (abuse of the right of petition) Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13+2 Pecuniary damage - award Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69481/01

    BAZORKINA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    The Court observes that in its extensive jurisprudence it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of facts in dispute, in particular when faced with allegations of disappearance under Article 2 of the Convention (for a summary of these, see, for example, Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, §§ 103-09, 27 July 2006).

    Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, among others, Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... ; Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening.

  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

    IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    The Court considers that these comments are to be considered as observations on the merits of the case, and not as an objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Imakayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 7615/02, 20 January 2005).

    The Court observes that in previous cases it has already 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-... ).

  • EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

    AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    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, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

    LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, among others, Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... ; Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening.
  • EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

    BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, among others, Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... ; Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening.
  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01

    ALIKHADZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, among others, Bazorkina v. Russia, no. 69481/01, 27 July 2006; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... ; Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court considers that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening.
  • EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

    BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    In view of the Court's above findings with regard to Article 2, this complaint is clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.09.2008 - 20755/04
    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, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 45-46, §§ 146-147, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht