Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violations of Art. 3 (torture and failure to investigate) Not necessary to examine other complaints under Art. 3 Violation of Art. 13 Not necessary to examine Art. 34 and 38-1-a Pecuniary damage ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.10.2004 - 77617/01
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

Wird zitiert von ... (77)Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  In the absence of such explanation the Court can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 274, 18 June 2002).

  An award may still be made notwithstanding the large number of imponderables involved in the assessment of future losses, though the greater the lapse of time involved the more uncertain the link between the breach and the damage becomes (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 426 et seq., 18 June 2002).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  In such cases the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

  Where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 27.09.1999 - 32377/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  31417/96 and 32377/96, §§ 22-23, ECHR 2000).

 
• EGMR, 10.05.2001 - 29392/95

  Z ET AUTRES c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  Nonetheless, bearing in mind the uncertainties of the applicant's situation, and the fact that he will undeniably suffer significant material losses as a result of his complete disability and the need for constant medical treatment, the Court considers it appropriate, in the present case, to make an award in respect of pecuniary damage based on its own assessment of the situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 442, ECHR 2001-VII; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 127, ECHR 2001-V; and Orhan v. Turkey, cited above, § 438).
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  Nonetheless, bearing in mind the uncertainties of the applicant's situation, and the fact that he will undeniably suffer significant material losses as a result of his complete disability and the need for constant medical treatment, the Court considers it appropriate, in the present case, to make an award in respect of pecuniary damage based on its own assessment of the situation (see, mutatis mutandis, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 442, ECHR 2001-VII; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 127, ECHR 2001-V; and Orhan v. Turkey, cited above, § 438).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  The Court observes that in some previous cases where the loss of future earnings was at issue, the Court based its calculations on the actuarial calculations of capital needed for maintaining a certain level of income, produced by the applicants" representatives (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 350, ECHR 2003-V, and Orhan v. Turkey, cited above, § 433).
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  The question to be decided in such cases is the level of just satisfaction, in respect of either past or future pecuniary loss, which it is necessary to award to an applicant, and is to be determined by the Court at its discretion, having regard to what is equitable (see Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (former Article 50), judgment of 6 November 1989, Series A no. 38, p. 9, § 15, and Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. the United Kingdom (Article 41), nos.
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  The applicant's complaints in this regard were therefore "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see the Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  The Court further reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (former Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, §§ 16-20).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  Not every investigation should necessarily be successful or come to a conclusion which coincides with the claimant's account of events; however, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, mutatis mutandis, Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 124, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
• EGMR, 18.10.2001 - 31143/96

  INDELICATO c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 40154/98

  MEHMET EMIN YÜKSEL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE

• EGMR, 01.06.2010 - 22978/05

  Gäfgen - Folter bei polizeilicher Vernehmung; Kindesentführung; Geständnis trotz …

  Wichtige Faktoren für wirksame Ermittlungen, die als Maßstab für die Entschlossenheit der Behörden zur Identifizierung und strafrechtlichen Verfolgung der Verantwortlichen gelten, sind zunächst Unverzüglichkeit (…vgl. u.a. Selmouni, a.a.O., Rdnrn. 78-79;… Nikolova und Velichkova, a.a.O., Rdnr. 59;… und Vladimir Romanov, a.a.O., Rdnr. 85 ff.) und Zügigkeit (vgl. Mikheyev ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 77617/01, Rdnr. 109, 26. Januar 2006, und Dedovskiy u.a. ./. Russland, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 7178/03, Rdnr. 89, 15. Mai 2008).
• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 67021/01

  Tatar und Tatar ./. Rumänien

  Il invoque à cet égard l'affaire Mikheyev c. Russie (no 77617/01, §§ 159-161, 26 janvier 2006).
• EGMR, 28.01.2014 - 35810/09

  O'KEEFFE v. IRELAND

  L'article 3 exige donc des États qu'ils mettent en place effectivement des enquêtes approfondies, rapides et indépendantes, aptes à conduire à des poursuites en cas de violation de cette disposition par des agents de l'État ou des particuliers (Mikheïev c. Russie, no 77617/01, 26 janvier 2006, et Akkoç c. Turquie, nos 22947/93 et 22948/93, CEDH 2000-X).

 
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  The Court considers that the Government's objection should be joined to the merits, since it is closely linked to the substance of the applicant's complaint about the State's alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 88, 26 January 2006).

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of injuries or the identity of the persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard, and a requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see, among many authorities, Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 107 et seq., 26 January 2006, and Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, §§ 102 et seq.).

• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 18968/07

  V.C. v. SLOVAKIA

  Toutefois, ce n'est pas parce qu'une enquête donnée n'a pas abouti à des conclusions que cela signifie qu'elle n'a pas été effective ; en effet, l'obligation d'enquête est « une obligation non de résultat, mais de moyens'(Mikheïev c. Russie, no 77617/01, §§ 107-109, 26 janvier 2006, et autres références citées).
• EGMR, 31.03.2015 - 9935/06

  NALBANDYAN v. ARMENIA

  Otherwise, torture or ill-treatment may be presumed in favour of the claimant and an issue may arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 127, 26 January 2006).

  It is not necessary in this case to find the interrogation techniques with which the Court is familiar - Palestinian hanging (see Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above), beatings (see Dikme v. Turkey, cited above), falaka (Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), electric shocks (see Akkoç v. Turkey, nos. 22947/93 and 22948/93, ECHR 2000-X, and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, 26 January 2006) or rape (see Aydin v. Turkey [GC], no. 23178/94, 25 September 1997) - but the intense psychological suffering arising from the very close family ties between the two victims was considered sufficient to find that the physical violence which occurred during the period in custody had amounted to an act of torture.

• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36777/03

  IRIBARREN PINILLOS c. ESPAGNE

  Compte tenu des incertitudes qui caractérisent la situation du requérant, de la gravité de sa situation et de son incapacité de travail, la Cour estime qu'il faut lui allouer une indemnité pour ses pertes matérielles, tant passées que futures (Mikheyev c. Russie, no 77617/01, 26 janvier 2006, § 162 et (Karagiannopoulos c. Grèce, no 27850/03, § 83, 21 juin 2007).

  Dans d'autres affaires où la Cour a conclu à la violation de l'article 3, elle a octroyé des sommes importantes à titre de réparation tant du dommage matériel que du dommage moral (voir par exemple les affaires Mikheïev c. Russie, no 77617/01, 26 janvier 2006, et Ä°lhan c. Turquie [GC], no 22277/93, CEDH 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02

  VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 105, ECHR 1999-V; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, in respect of Russia, Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 60-62, ECHR 2006-...; and Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 135, 26 January 2006).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 36629/10

  SABA c. ITALIE

  D'abord, d'importants facteurs pour que l'enquête soit effective, et qui permettent de vérifier si les autorités avaient la volonté d'identifier et de poursuivre les responsables, sont la célérité avec laquelle elle est ouverte (Selmouni, précité, §§ 78-79 ; Nikolova et Velitchkova c. Bulgarie, no 7888/03, § 59, 20 décembre 2007 ; et Vladimir Romanov, précité §§ 85 et suiv.) et la célérité avec laquelle elle est conduite (Mikheïev c. Russie, no 77617/01, § 109, 26 janvier 2006, et Dedovski et autres c. Russie, no 7178/03, § 89, CEDH 2008).
• EGMR, 22.12.2015 - 68736/11

  LYKOVA c. RUSSIE

  Se référant à l'arrêt Mikheïev (Mikheïev c. Russie, no 77617/01, 26 janvier 2006), elle suppose que son fils, après plusieurs heures de torture insupportable, s'est retrouvé dans un état d'esprit tel qu'il ne voyait plus que la défenestration comme moyen d'échapper à ses souffrances.
• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 12008/06

  ALEKSEY BORISOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  VIRABYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.05.2015 - 1454/09

  DOICIU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 22362/06

  CUCU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 08.09.2011 - 33108/05

  OSHURKO c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02

  MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 36552/05

  ZAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 04.12.2012 - 41452/07

  LENEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 44973/04

  PREMININY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  TEREN AKSAKAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 34085/06

  VELKHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01

  ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 59075/09

  MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 44888/16

  PERTAIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2018 - 48327/09

  JURASZ c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 37869/08

  VATANDAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.04.2013 - 17828/05

  OCHELKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 7259/03

  MITKUS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 36220/02

  BARABANSHCHIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 27251/03

  SHAKHGIRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2018 - 31714/10

  ISIK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.01.2018 - 17820/11

  ILDEM ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.06.2016 - 30173/12

  JØRGENSEN AND OTHERS v. DENMARK
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 21049/06

  RUSTAM KHODZHAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 37715/11

  SAYGI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 22663/06

  GRIGORYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 19433/07

  TYAGUNOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 22485/05

  FILATOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 38047/04

  SHUVALOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2010 - 75472/01

  TIGRAN AYRAPETYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 28148/03

  KHACHUKAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2009 - 27256/03

  ASTAMIROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 27248/03

  MESHAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 27180/03

  ABDULKADYROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.12.2008 - 3026/03

  AKHMADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 32059/02

  AKHIYADOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 26064/02

  ATABAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 77626/01

  AZIYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.08.2021 - 2290/14

  NOWAK c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 20.06.2019 - 34199/09

  BELEY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.06.2018 - 59142/16

  LAZARIDOU c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 23.01.2018 - 6591/06

  GÜVEN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 15980/12

  MASLOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 23559/07

  OLEYNIK c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 3621/07

  DURMAZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 54765/09

  ASKHABOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.04.2012 - 14880/05

  KAZANTSEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 20212/05

  ALCHAGIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.10.2008 - 5742/02

  AKULININ AND BABICH v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 47794/06

  MATYUSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 69990/11 (anhängig)

  KULBUZHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 16321/08 (anhängig)

  CHAPANOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR - 20808/10 (anhängig)

  MUBARAKSHIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 58179/09 (anhängig)

  YARULLIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 7319/11 (anhängig)

  KHAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 41151/09 (anhängig)

  RAKHMANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 2527/09

  KOSUMOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 08.07.2014 - 59177/10

  YERLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.09.2011 - 31564/07

  BEKSULTANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2008 - 8979/02

  MAGOMED MUSAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2008 - 13569/02

  ZULPA AKHMATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 11152/11

  HIKMET TOPAL c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.11.2018 - 11467/15

  S.N. v. RUSSIA