Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 13+8, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art.... 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13+2 Violation of Art. 13+8 Violation of Art. 13+P1-1 Violation of Art. 8 ...

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  The Court reiterates that there must be a clear causal connection between the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicants and the violation of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  Also, there must be an implicit requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition (see Yasa, cited above, §§ 102-04, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2000-III).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  As regards complaints about moral suffering brought under Article 3 of the Convention by relatives of victims of security operations carried out by the authorities, the Court has adopted a restrictive approach, stating that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III; Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 106, 23 April 2009).

 
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  In addition to setting out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, Article 2 implies a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place an appropriate legal and administrative framework defining the limited circumstances in which law-enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the light of the relevant international standards (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-XI, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 96, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 30949/96

  YASIN ATES v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  As regards complaints about moral suffering brought under Article 3 of the Convention by relatives of victims of security operations carried out by the authorities, the Court has adopted a restrictive approach, stating that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III; Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 106, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  In addition to setting out the circumstances when deprivation of life may be justified, Article 2 implies a primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place an appropriate legal and administrative framework defining the limited circumstances in which law-enforcement officials may use force and firearms, in the light of the relevant international standards (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 57-59, ECHR 2004-XI, and Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 96, ECHR 2005-VII).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  The provisions of the above-mentioned Act are not to be construed so as to create an exemption for any kind of limitations of personal rights for an indefinite period of time and without setting clear boundaries for the security forces" actions (see, mutatis mutandis, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 188, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).
• EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 72118/01

  KHAMIDOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  The Court reiterates, as it has already noted in cases concerning the conflict in the Chechen Republic, that the Suppression of Terrorism Act and, in particular, section 21, which releases State agents participating in a counter-terrorist operation from any liability for damage caused to, inter alia, "other legally protected interests", while vesting wide powers in State agents within the zone of the counter-terrorist operation, does not define with sufficient clarity the scope of those powers and the manner of their exercise so as to afford an individual adequate protection against arbitrariness (see Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 143, ECHR 2007-XII (extracts).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 36156/04

  BITIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  As regards complaints about moral suffering brought under Article 3 of the Convention by relatives of victims of security operations carried out by the authorities, the Court has adopted a restrictive approach, stating that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III; Yasin Ates v. Turkey, no. 30949/96, § 135, 31 May 2005; and Bitiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 36156/04, § 106, 23 April 2009).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  Notwithstanding the terms of Article 13 read literally, the existence of an actual breach of another provision of the Convention (a substantive provision) is not a prerequisite for the application of the Article (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  On the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

  Nevertheless, the Court has considered a separate finding of a violation of Article 3 to be justified in situations of confirmed death where the applicants were direct witnesses to the suffering of their family members (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 204, 14 March 2013, where the applicant witnessed the slow death of her son who was in detention, without being able to help him; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 190, 29 March 2011, where a violation of Article 3 was found in respect of an applicant who had witnessed the killing of his entire family, but no violation was found in respect of other applicants who had only later found out about the killings; Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008, where the applicants were unable to bury the dismembered and decapitated bodies of their children in a proper manner; Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 53050/21

  ZLATANOV v. BULGARIA

  8803/02 and 14 others, § 106, ECHR 2004-VI (extracts); Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 159 and 163, 29 March 2011; Khamzayev and Others v. Russia, no. 1503/02, § 153, 3 May 2011; and Kerimova and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  The Court would distinguish the present case from the cases brought before the Court by family members of the victims of "disappearances" or extra-judicial killings committed by the security forces (see, for example, Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, §§ 116-118, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)) and from the cases where people were killed by actions of the authorities in contravention of Article 2 of the Convention (see, for example, Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 138-151 and 190, 29 March 2011).

 
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05

  SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  En l'espèce, le décès des proches des requérants n'est pas le résultat d'actions des autorités contraires à l'article 2 de la Convention (voir les circonstances ayant abouti au décès des proches des requérants, paragraphes 6 et 7 ci-dessus, et comparer, par exemple, avec Esmukhambetov et autres c. Russie, no 23445/03, §§ 138-151 et 190, 29 mars 2011).
• EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 50757/06

  TAZIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  These are issues to be examined rather under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see also Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 188, 29 March 2011, where even total destruction of homes and property had not been found to be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention).

  Reference to this Act cannot replace specific authorisation of an interference with an individual's rights under Article 8 of the Convention, delimiting the object and scope of that interference and drawn up in accordance with the relevant legal provisions (see, for example, Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 176, 29 March 2011; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, §§ 188-189, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  This investigation should be thorough, independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 115-18, 29 March 2011; and Umarova and Others v. Russia, no. 25654/08, §§ 84-88, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  The State authorities are also under an obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, among other authorities, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 140, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 107, 29 March 2011; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  The facts of acts of particular seriousness, such as extrajudicial executions, mass murders, tortures, enforced disappearances, or similar, committed by representatives of Russia's armed and security forces during the armed conflict in the Chechen Republic have been established by the Court in a significant number of cases which have been brought to its attention and where violations of various Convention provisions have been found (see, for instance, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005; Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, 12 October 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, 18 January 2007; Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, 4 October 2007; Sadykov v. Russia, no. 41840/02, 7 October 2010; Khatsiyeva and Others, cited above; Akhmadov and Others, cited above; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 40166/07

  Russland muss Tschetschenen Schmerzensgeld zahlen

  This investigation should be thorough, independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and should afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see, among many other authorities, Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 115-18, 29 March 2011, and Aslakhanova, cited above, § 121, with further references).
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 44817/04

  KILYEN v. ROMANIA

  Reference to that Law in general terms cannot replace an individual authorisation of a search, delimiting its object and scope and drawn up in accordance with the relevant legal provisions either beforehand or afterwards (see, mutatis mutandis, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, §§ 188-189, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts), and Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 176, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 7461/08

  BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

  DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 66953/09

  MILEUSNIC ET MILEUSNIC-ESPENHEIM c. CROATIE
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07

  ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

  ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 47215/07

  AVKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 71593/11

  B. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13

  NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA