Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISLAMOVA c. RUSSIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  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 efficace) (Volet procédural) Violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement inhumain) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISLAMOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  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 ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  Where the news about the missing person's death was preceded by a sufficiently long period when he or she had been deemed disappeared, there exists a distinct period during which the applicants sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic to the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  As to the costs and expenses, the Court has to establish first whether these costs and expenses were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns 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 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  The essence of such a violation does not lie mainly in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather concerns 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, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  As to the costs and expenses, the Court has to establish first whether these costs and expenses were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).

• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  Against this background, and in so far as monetary compensation is relevant in the context of the present discussion on just satisfaction, the Court finds no indication, and the respondent Government have not argued otherwise, that the domestic law allows adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time in respect of the Court's findings concerning the death inflicted on the applicant's son and the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, §§ 76-77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention).
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  Against this background and in so far as a monetary compensation is relevant in the present context (see, by way of comparison, Kopylov v. Russia, no. 3933/04, §§ 127-131, 29 July 2010), it remains unclear whether the domestic law allows the adequate "reparation" to be sought and obtained within a reasonable time on account of the double violation under Article 2 of the Convention, in particular on account of the defects in the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Tarariyeva v. Russia, no. 4353/03, §§ 96-101, ECHR 2006-XV (extracts); Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 77, ECHR 2006-III; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 98-102, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 136, 17 December 2009, and Islamova v. Russia, no. 5713/11, § 73, 30 April 2015, in the context of Article 13 of the Convention; see also Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 129, ECHR 2006-IX).