Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BETAYEV AND BETAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 13+2, Art. 13+8 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 13+2 Violation ...

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  These delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case, not only demonstrate the authorities" failure to act of their own motion but also constitute a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 11.12.2003 - 39084/97

  YANKOV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  They have thus failed to show that any remedies existed in respect of the unlawful search in issue (see, mutatis mutandis, Vereinigung demokratischer Soldaten Österreichs and Gubi v. Austria, judgment of 19 December 1994, Series A no. 302, p. 20, § 53, and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 154, 11 December 2003).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  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, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives" accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva, cited above).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in the Chechen Republic (see, among others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in the Chechen Republic (see, among others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

  BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in the Chechen Republic (see, among others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01

  ALIKHADZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  The Court notes with great concern that a number of cases have come before it which suggest that the phenomenon of "disappearances" is well known in the Chechen Republic (see, among others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).
• EGMR, 26.07.2007 - 64209/01

  PEEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  Therefore, the refusal of the district prosecutor's office to investigate the unlawful intrusion into the applicants" home due to the expiry of the statutory limitation period (see paragraph 54 above) did not in itself amount to a breach of Article 13 (see, mutatis mutandis, Peev v. Bulgaria, no. 64209/01, § 70, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  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, cited above, § 391).
• EGMR, 19.12.1994 - 15153/89

  VEREINIGUNG DEMOKRATISCHER SOLDATEN ÖSTERREICHS AND GUBI v. AUSTRIA
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 10.03.2020 - 58558/13

  WARESIAK c. POLOGNE

  a) la famille de la victime n'avait pas eu accès à l'instruction ni aux documents judiciaires (Ogur c. Turquie [GC], no 21594/93, § 92, CEDH 1999-III), ou elle n'avait pas été informée de développements importants dans l'enquête (Betaïev et Betaïeva c. Russie, no 37315/03, § 88, 29 mai 2008) ;.
• EGMR, 30.06.2011 - 22590/04

  GIRARD c. FRANCE

  La Cour a dit a de nombreuses reprises que cette obligation valait également dans les cas où une personne avait disparu dans des circonstances où l'on pouvait considérer que sa vie était en danger (voir parmi beaucoup d'autres Timurtas c. Turquie, no 23531/94, § 90, CEDH 2000-VI, Chypre c. Turquie [GC], no 25781/94, § 132, CEDH 2001-IV, Gongadzé précité, §§ 175-177, OsmanoÄŸlu précité, § 90, Betaïev et Betaïeva c. Russie, no 37315/03, § 90, 29 mai 2008, Sangarieva et autres c. Russie, no 1839/04, §§ 76-85, 29 mai 2008 et Varnava et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 et 16073/90, § 191, CEDH 2009-....).
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  FANZIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Such delay in itself was liable to affect the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Betayev and Betayeva v. Russia, no. 37315/03, § 85, 29 May 2008).