Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DIBIROVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 8, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 18545/04

  The Court has to examine whether the situation at hand at all falls within the ambit of Article 2. It reiterates that Article 2 protects the right to life in situations where potentially lethal force is employed, notwithstanding the fact that as a result of subsequent medical interventions the applicant's life has been saved (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; and Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 32704/04

  DENIS VASILYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 18545/04

  Nevertheless, the Court's case-law has established that it is only in exceptional circumstances that physical ill-treatment which did not result in death may disclose a violation of Article 2. The degree and type of force used and the intention or aim behind the use of force may, among other factors, be relevant in assessing whether in a particular case actions resulting in an injury short of death were such as to bring the matter within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2 (see Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 94, 17 December 2009, with further references).
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  GONCHARUK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 18545/04

  The Court has to examine whether the situation at hand at all falls within the ambit of Article 2. It reiterates that Article 2 protects the right to life in situations where potentially lethal force is employed, notwithstanding the fact that as a result of subsequent medical interventions the applicant's life has been saved (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; and Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

  ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 18545/04

  The Court has to examine whether the situation at hand at all falls within the ambit of Article 2. It reiterates that Article 2 protects the right to life in situations where potentially lethal force is employed, notwithstanding the fact that as a result of subsequent medical interventions the applicant's life has been saved (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; and Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 18545/04

  The Court has to examine whether the situation at hand at all falls within the ambit of Article 2. It reiterates that Article 2 protects the right to life in situations where potentially lethal force is employed, notwithstanding the fact that as a result of subsequent medical interventions the applicant's life has been saved (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; and Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).

• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 39768/06

  DZHAMALDAYEV v. RUSSIA

  However, the Court also observes that where more than one potentially effective remedy is available, the applicant is only required to have used one of them (see Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII (extracts), and Dibirova v. Russia (dec.), no. 18545/04, 31 May 2011).