Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHAMKHOYEVA 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, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 6636/09

  As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish firstly whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants" representatives 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, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 6636/09

  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, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 6636/09

  There were no special factors such as those cited in, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia (no. 69480/01, § 111, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)) justifying the victim status of the third and fourth applicants in this case.

 
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 6636/09

  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, 28.05.2019 - 6636/09

  The delay in the opening of the criminal case, or the lulls in the proceedings, cannot therefore be interpreted as constituting a failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Sagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 22698/09 and 31189/11, §§ 58-61, 8 December 2015, and Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, § 67, 4 October 2016).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40001/08

  ABDULKHADZHIYEVA AND ABDULKHADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 6636/09

  The delay in the opening of the criminal case, or the lulls in the proceedings, cannot therefore be interpreted as constituting a failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Sagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 22698/09 and 31189/11, §§ 58-61, 8 December 2015, and Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, § 67, 4 October 2016).

• EGMR - 7651/08 (anhängig)

  SAYNAROYEV AND SAYNAROYEVA v. RUSSIA and 9 otjer applications

  The applicant in Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09) is not legally represented (see the enclosed Appendix).

  Application no. 58501/09 Ibayeva v. Russia}}.

  Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicants in all the applications, save for that of Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), complain that they suffer severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in connection with the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State's failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents.

  The applicants in all the applications, save for that of Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention.

  In respect of the applications Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), Bakhayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 22946/11) and Ocherkhadzhiyevy v. Russia (no. 31184/11) have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on behalf of the applicants "excessive or unexplained delays" in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, 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.

  In respect of all the applications, except for application Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), has the applicants" mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, the authorities" alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearances been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?.

  In respect of all the applications, except for application Ibayeva v. Russia (no. 58501/09), did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints as required by Article 13 of the Convention?.

  58501/09.