Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAGMETOV 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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAGMETOV c. RUSSIE

  Violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2-1 - Vie) (Volet matériel);Violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2-1 - Enquête effective) (Volet procédural);Préjudice moral - réparation (Article 41 - Préjudice moral;Satisfaction équitable) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] 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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (46)

• EGMR, 27.01.2015 - 36925/10

  Gefängnisse in Bulgarien: Unwürdige Zustände

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13, §§ 302-03, 27 January 2015; and Blesa Rodríguez v. Spain, no. 61131/12, §§ 47-48, 1 December 2015).

  36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13, § 301, 27 January 2015; Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 110, 12 May 2015; and Kavaklioglu and Others v. Turkey, no. 15397/02, § 301, 6 October 2015.

  36925/10, 21487/12, 72893/12, 73196/12, 77718/12 and 9717/13, § 84, 27 January 2015.

• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 7367/76

  GUZZARDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  On the other hand, neither the above principle nor Rules 60 and 75 have invariably prevented the Court from applying a degree of flexibility, essentially in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and, for instance, agreeing to examine claims for which applicants did not quantify the amount, "leaving it to the Court's discretion" (see, among many other examples, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, §§ 112-14, Series A no. 39; Blesa Rodríguez, cited above, §§ 47-48; Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 180-82, 5 January 2016; Svetlana Vasilyeva v. Russia, no. 10775/09, §§ 43-45, 5 April 2016; Sürer v. Turkey, no. 20184/06, §§ 49-51, 31 May 2016; compare Mihu v. Romania, no. 36903/13, §§ 82-84, 1 March 2016).

  [51] The Court has generally referred to the fact that it enjoys a "certain discretion in the exercise of the power conferred by Article 50 ï�›Article 41ï��" a fact borne out by the expressions "just" and "if necessary" - see, for example, Guzzardi v. Italy, no. 7367/76, § 114, 6 November 1980 and Perdigao v. Portugal ï�›GCï��, no. 24768/06, § 85, 16 November 2010.

• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 8196/02

  SALAH v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  The awarding of sums of money to applicants by way of just satisfaction is not one of the Court's main duties but is incidental to its task under Article 19 of the Convention of ensuring the observance by States of their obligations under the Convention (see Salah v. the Netherlands, no. 8196/02, § 70, ECHR 2006-IX (extracts)).

  [18] See, in this regard, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 176, ECHR 2006; and Salah v. Netherlands, no. 8196/02, § 70, ECHR 2006-IX (extracts).

 
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 20641/04

  CHUDUN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  [69] See, for example, Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 50, 7 June 2007; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Boordin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012, which all concerned violations of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

• EGMR, 18.12.2008 - 29971/04

  KATS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  See also Kats v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, 18 December 2008, which concerned Article 2 and in which a claim had been submitted albeit out of time.

• EGMR, 03.07.2008 - 7188/03

  CHEMBER v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  [69] See, for example, Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 50, 7 June 2007; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Boordin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012, which all concerned violations of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

• EGMR, 20.01.2005 - 63378/00

  MAYZIT v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  [69] See, for example, Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 50, 7 June 2007; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Boordin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012, which all concerned violations of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

• EGMR, 21.07.2005 - 28171/02

  FADIL YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  Thus, the Court normally refused to take such statements into account for the purpose of Article 41 of the Convention (see Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, §§ 28-29, ECHR 2001-IX; Fadil Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 28171/02, §§ 26-27, 21 July 2005; Miltayev and Meltayeva v. Russia, no. 8455/06, § 62, 15 January 2013; AnÄ‘elkovic v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 33, 9 April 2013; compare Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 44-47, ECHR 2002-III; Gorodnitchev v. Russia, no. 52058/99, §§ 142-43, 24 May 2007; Calovskis v. Latvia, no. 22205/13, §§ 233-37, 24 July 2014; Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

  See also Sykora v. Slovakia, no. 26077/03, §§ 31-32, 18 January 2011; Fadil Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 28171/02, §§ 26-27, 21 July 2005; and Chiorean v. Romania, no. 20535/03, §§ 31-34, 21 October 2008.

• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 34000/02

  IGOR IVANOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  [69] See, for example, Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 50, 7 June 2007; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Boordin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012, which all concerned violations of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

• EGMR, 18.10.2007 - 67253/01

  BABUSHKIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  The Court previously found it necessary, in rare cases, to make a monetary award in respect of non-pecuniary damage, even where no such claim had been made or where the claim was belated, taking into account the exceptional circumstances of the cases, for instance the absolute or fundamental character of the right or freedom violated (see, in relation to a violation of Article 2 of the Convention, Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 149, 18 December 2008; in relation to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of ill-treatment and lack of an effective investigation or appalling conditions of detention, Bursuc v. Romania, no. 42066/98, § 124, 12 October 2004; Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Davtyan v. Georgia, no. 73241/01, § 71, 27 July 2006; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, §§ 50-51, 7 June 2007; Nadrosov v. Russia, no. 9297/02, § 54, 31 July 2008; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, ECHR 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Borodin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012; see also, in relation to a violation of Article 5 of the Convention, Rusu v. Austria, no. 34082/02, § 62, 2 October 2008, and Crabtree v. the Czech Republic, no. 41116/04, § 60, 25 February 2010).

  [69] See, for example, Mayzit v. Russia, no. 63378/00, § 88, 20 January 2005; Igor Ivanov v. Russia, no. 34000/02, § 50, 7 June 2007; Babushkin v. Russia, no. 67253/01, § 62, 18 October 2007; Chember v. Russia, no. 7188/03, § 77, 3 July 2008; Chudun v. Russia, no. 20641/04, § 129, 21 June 2011; and Boordin v. Russia, no. 41867/04, § 166, 6 November 2012, which all concerned violations of Article 3 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.

• EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 11223/04

  X v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 41867/04

  BORODIN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 20184/06

  SÜRER c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98

  VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 57519/09

  RAZZAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 130/10
• EGMR, 14.12.2006 - 4353/03

  TARARIEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 07.05.1974 - 1936/63

  NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  ISLAMOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 12.12.1991 - 12718/87

  CLOOTH v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 18.04.2006 - 37494/02

  KARACSONYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
• EGMR, 01.03.2016 - 36903/13

  MIHU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.12.1996 - 19187/91

  SAUNDERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 05.04.2016 - 10775/09

  SVETLANA VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 29.07.2010 - 3933/04

  KOPYLOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 03.10.2008 - 45133/98
• EGMR, 27.08.1991 - 12750/87

  PHILIS v. GREECE
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 11519/85

  FRANCESCO LOMBARDO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 28.08.1991 - 11170/84

  Brandstetter ./. Österreich
• EGMR, 22.06.1972 - 2614/65

  RINGEISEN v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 74568/12

  Russland verurteilt: 25.000 Euro wegen Festnahme nach Demo
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2008 - 9297/02

  NADROSOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 40016/98

  KARNER c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 07.05.2002 - 59498/00

  BURDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2013 - 8455/06

  MILTAYEV AND MELTAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2007 - 52058/99

  GORODNITCHEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 24.10.2006 - 4451/02

  KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.11.1980 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1) (ARTICLE 50)
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE