Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 38 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Enoukidze and Guirgvliani v. Georgia

  [27.04.2010]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [FRE]

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  The Court reiterated in the Çakıcı v. Turkey case ([GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV) that Article 2 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to life, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and, together with Article 3 of the Convention, enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies that make up the Council of Europe (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92

  ERTAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ertak v. Turkey, no. 20764/92, § 32, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands, without a satisfactory explanation, may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Medova, cited above, § 76, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).

 
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  The Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts, and cogent elements may require it to depart from and set aside these findings (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 271, ECHR 2003-V (extracts), and Leonidis, cited above, § 59).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  The Government disagreed, arguing that the complaint about the criminal proceedings was incompatible ratione materiae with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, since the applicants, as a civil party, had pursued purely punitive purposes (compare with Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 69-70, ECHR 2004-I).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  The Court reiterated in the Çakıcı v. Turkey case ([GC], no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV) that Article 2 of the Convention, which safeguards the right to life, ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions in the Convention and, together with Article 3 of the Convention, enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies that make up the Council of Europe (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  As a result, the applicants were left in a complete vacuum as regards the progress of the investigation, which clearly deprived them of the opportunity to safeguard their legitimate procedural interests as it unfolded (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 44 and 46-48, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 346, 18 June 2002; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 49, 24 March 2009, and Güleç, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  As a result, the applicants were left in a complete vacuum as regards the progress of the investigation, which clearly deprived them of the opportunity to safeguard their legitimate procedural interests as it unfolded (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 44 and 46-48, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 346, 18 June 2002; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 49, 24 March 2009, and Güleç, cited above, § 82).
• EGMR, 17.10.2006 - 52067/99

  OKKALI c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  Otherwise, the States" duty to carry out an effective investigation would lose much of its meaning, and the rights enshrined in the above-mentioned provisions would be ineffective in practice (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73-76, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  Otherwise, the States" duty to carry out an effective investigation would lose much of its meaning, and the rights enshrined in the above-mentioned provisions would be ineffective in practice (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 61, 20 December 2007; Fadime and Turan Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 23872/04, § 46, 27 May 2010; and Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 73-76, ECHR 2006-XII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  BEKER v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 23872/04

  FADIME AND TURAN KARABULUT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 18183/05

  KHAINDRAVA ET DZAMASHVILI c. GEORGIE
• EGMR, 08.07.2010 - 2747/02

  VACHKOVI v. BULGARIA

• EGMR, 26.03.2024 - 38963/18

  V.I. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Otherwise, a State's duty to carry out an effective investigation would lose much of its meaning, and the rights enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention would be ineffective in practice (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 268, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 23405/16

  S.F. c. SUISSE

  Ainsi, dans de nombreuses affaires, la Cour a pris en compte un certain nombre d'éléments tels que, par exemple, le fait que les enquêteurs sont des suspects potentiels (Bekta?Ÿ et Özalp c. Turquie, no 10036/03, § 66, 20 avril 2010, et Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 342, 18 juin 2002), qu'ils sont les collègues directs des personnes faisant l'objet de l'enquête ou susceptibles de l'être (Ramsahai et autres c. Pays-Bas [GC], no 52391/99, §§ 335-341, CEDH 2007-II, Emars c. Lettonie, no 22412/08, §§ 85 et 95, 18 novembre 2014, et Akta?Ÿ c. Turquie, no 24351/94, § 301, CEDH 2003-V), qu'ils ont des liens hiérarchiques avec les suspects potentiels (?žandru et autres c. Roumanie, no 22465/03, § 74, 8 décembre 2009, et Enoukidze et Guirgvliani c. Géorgie, no 25091/07, §§ 247 et suiv., 26 avril 2011) ou que le comportement concret des organes d'enquête dénote un manque d'indépendance, comme par exemple l'omission de certaines mesures qui s'imposaient pour élucider l'affaire et châtier les éventuels responsables (Sergueï Chevtchenko c. Ukraine, no 32478/02, §§ 72 et 73, 4 avril 2006).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  MATKAVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The obligation to furnish the evidence requested by the Court is binding on the respondent Government from the moment that a request has been formulated (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 296, 26 April 2011).

 
• EGMR, 14.04.2015 - 24014/05

  MUSTAFA TUNÇ ET FECIRE TUNÇ c. TURQUIE

  Ainsi, dans de nombreuses affaires, la Cour a pris en compte un certain nombre d'éléments tels que, par exemple, le fait que les enquêteurs soient des suspects potentiels (Bektas et Özalp c. Turquie, no 10036/03, § 66, 20 avril 2010, et Orhan c. Turquie, no 25656/94, § 342, 18 juin 2002), qu'ils soient les collègues directs des personnes faisant l'objet de l'enquête ou susceptibles de l'être (Ramsahai et autres, précité, §§ 335-341, Emars c. Lettonie, no 22412/08, §§ 85 et 95, 18 novembre 2014, et Aktas c. Turquie, no 24351/94, § 301, CEDH 2003-V), qu'ils aient des liens hiérarchiques avec les suspects potentiels (Sandru et autres c. Roumanie, no 22465/03, § 74, 8 décembre 2009, et Enoukidze et Guirgvliani c. Géorgie, no 25091/07, §§ 247 et suiv., 26 avril 2011) ou encore que le comportement concret des organes d'enquête dénote un manque d'indépendance, comme par exemple l'omission de certaines mesures qui s'imposaient pour élucider l'affaire et châtier les éventuels responsables (Sergey Shevchenko, précité, §§ 72 et 73), le poids excessif accordé aux déclarations des suspects (Kaya c. Turquie, 19 février 1998, § 89, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1998-I, et Grimailovs c. Lettonie, no 6087/03, § 114, 25 juin 2013), la négligence de certaines pistes qui s'imposaient clairement (Ogur c. Turquie [GC], no 21594/93, §§ 90-91, CEDH 1999-III), ou encore l'inertie exagérée (Rupa c. Roumanie (no 1), no 58478/00, §§ 123 et 124, 16 décembre 2008).
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  This is essential for maintaining public confidence and ensuring adherence to the rule of law and for preventing any appearance of tolerance of or collusion in unlawful acts (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 96, ECHR 2004-XII; Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, § 51, 19 December 2006; Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 57 (e), 20 December 2007; Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, § 53 (d), 24 March 2009; and Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 242, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 2429/13

  SARI c. TURQUIE

  Certes, la nature et le degré de l'examen répondant au critère minimum d'effectivité s'apprécient à la lumière de l'ensemble des faits pertinents et eu égard aux réalités pratiques du travail d'enquête (Velcea et Mazare c. Roumanie, no 64301/01, § 105, 1er décembre 2009, et Mustafa Tunç et Fecire Tunç, précité, § 176), mais il n'en demeure pas moins que, lorsqu'un individu a perdu la vie alors qu'il était sous le contrôle des agents de l'État, dans des circonstances suspectes - comme celles de l'espèce - les autorités compétentes doivent soumettre l'enquête menée sur les faits à un contrôle particulièrement strict (Enoukidze et Guirgvliani c. Géorgie, no 25091/07, § 277, 26 avril 2011).
• EGMR, 07.07.2022 - 72611/14

  TAGIYEVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  That situation deprived the applicant of the opportunity to safeguard her legitimate interests and prevented sufficient scrutiny of the investigation by the public (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2004-IX; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, § 49, 24 March 2009; and Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 250, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 34720/16

  KVIRIKASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  They did not explain the origin of this injury, limiting the scope of the investigation to the examination of a single blow inflicted on the applicant before the arrest (compare Shishkin and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 30050/09, §§ 92-97, 1 September 2020; see also Minin and Others v. Russia [Committee], no. 29120/06 and 8 others, § 146, 27 July 2021; see also Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, §§ 256 and 266, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 6232/20

  SAAKASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  The original criminal proceedings with respect to the same crime, which had been conducted by the authorities between 2006 and 2007 and had resulted in the conviction on 6 July 2006 of four officers of the CSD - G.A., A.A., A.Gh. and M.B. - for, in particular, wilful bodily harm resulting in death, was found by the Court, in a judgment of 26 April 2011, to have been lacking "the requisite independence, impartiality, objectivity and thoroughness" (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, §§ 276-77, 26 April 2011).
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 15980/12

  MASLOVA c. RUSSIE

  Quand un individu a perdu la vie aux mains d'un agent de l'État dans des circonstances suspectes, les autorités internes compétentes doivent soumettre l'enquête menée sur les faits à un contrôle particulièrement strict (Armani Da Silva c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 5878/08, § 234, 30 mars 2016, et Enoukidze et Guirgvliani c. Géorgie, no 25091/07, § 277, 26 avril 2011).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 22412/08

  EMARS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 8938/07

  KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 4936/12

  TOMAC c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 11323/08

  SURMANIDZE AND ARTMELADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2023 - 43146/15

  NEMTSOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 74282/11

  KHODYUKEVICH c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 01.04.2014 - 2228/10

  GAMTSEMLIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 06.10.2022 - 9264/15

  B.Ü. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
• EGMR, 07.06.2022 - 30464/13

  AKHALAIA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 5168/06

  BAGHASHVILI v. GEORGIA