Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (31)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 4704/04

  PALIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10

  Although the respondent Government tried to raise the issue of the applicants" compliance with the six-month rule (see, mutatis mutandis, N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 44, ECHR 2002-X), the issue of the applicants" compliance with the admissibility criteria calls for the Court's consideration proprio motu (see Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4704/04, § 48, 15 February 2011).

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07

  YANDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (See by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants delayed lodging a formal complaint with the domestic authorities, and did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation lay seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 50606/08

  MEZHIDOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The breaks that occurred cannot therefore be held against them or interpreted as their failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants delayed lodging a formal complaint with the domestic authorities, and had not contacted the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant.
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 36875/11

  KHAKIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in opening the criminal cases, or the lulls in the proceedings, therefore cannot be interpreted as the applicants" failure to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).

 
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 50556/08

  KUKURKHOYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The delays in opening the criminal cases or the lulls in the proceedings cannot, therefore, be interpreted as failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the six-month requirement (see Abdulkhadzhiyeva and Abdulkhadzhiyev v. Russia, no. 40001/08, §§ 9, 15 and 67, 4 October 2016, where the delay in lodging a formal complaint amounted to eight months, and contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants did not contact the investigating authorities for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 44776/09

  GANATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Given the applicants" active stance in the proceedings, those periods of inactivity on the part of the authorities, when the investigation was suspended, cannot be attributed to them as their failure to comply with the six-month requirement (contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016, where the applicants had no contact with the investigators for about eight years and three months, while the investigation was seemingly dormant).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 43955/11

  MAKSIMOVA AND KAPUSTIN v. RUSSIA

  Considering the overall time frame between the disappearance of Mr Maksimov and the lodging of the application (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 165, ECHR 2009), the Court does not find that the lack of progress in the criminal investigation of the incident should be held against the applicants or interpreted as either a failure on their part to demonstrate due diligence or comply with the six-month requirement (see, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 19.10.2021 - 51928/15

  TATAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Considering the overall time frame for lodging of the application (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 165, ECHR 2009), along with the applicants" stance in the criminal proceedings, the Court finds that the applicants in Tatayev and Others (no. 51928/15) complied with the admissibility criteria (contrast Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10) and the Government's objection in this regard is dismissed.
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 38984/18

  KHUTIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Considering the overall time frame of lodging the application with the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 165, ECHR 2009), along with the applicants" active stance in the proceedings, the Court does not find that the lack of progress in the investigation of their relative's disappearance should be held against the applicants or interpreted as either a failure on their part to demonstrate due diligence or comply with the six-month requirement (see, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 46935/18

  YELKHOROYEV v. RUSSIA

  Considering the overall time frame of lodging the application with the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 165, ECHR 2009), along with the applicant's active stance in the proceedings, the Court does not find that the lack of progress of the investigation into his daughter's disappearance should be held against the applicant or interpreted as either a failure on his part to demonstrate due diligence or comply with the six-month requirement (see, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 17.03.2020 - 53284/13

  TURPULKHANOVA AND KHASIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Considering the overall time frame of lodging the applications with the Court (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 165, ECHR 2009), along with the applicants" active stances in the proceedings, the Court does not find that the lack of progress in the criminal investigation of their daughters" disappearance should be held against the applicants or interpreted as either a failure on their part to demonstrate due diligence or comply with the six-month requirement (see, by contrast, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016).
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  TIMERBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 2297/15

  S.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 53074/12

  IZHAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 38889/17

  MALAYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2021 - 54931/18

  INDIRBAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 19/16

  IDRISOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51119/15

  GADAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.12.2019 - 18988/16

  SHAYTILAYEVA AND DYSHNEYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 22983/10

  MAKHMUDOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 36962/09

  TAZUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 70571/13 (anhängig)

  TEMIRSULTANOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 50260/15 (anhängig)

  TAYSUMOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 11542/15 (anhängig)

  PASHAYEVA AND MUSAITOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 78616/13 (anhängig)

  IBRAGIMOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 60905/14 (anhängig)

  IBAKOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 71383/13 (anhängig)

  DANGIRIYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 69031/14 (anhängig)

  ASTAMIROVA AND ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR - 62822/15 (anhängig)

  IZHAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 29541/14

  YUSHAYEVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12

  ABUBAKAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.10.2018 - 14196/08

  BITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA