Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PRYNDA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (17)Neu Zitiert selbst (1)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 10904/05

  However, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity was not caused intentionally, the positive obligation imposed by Article 2 to set up an effective judicial system does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII).

• EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 44244/19

  KENTESH AND BORODYNYA v. UKRAINE

  Ukraine, no. 10904/05,.

  10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko.

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17860/17

  GOLOBORODKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 56, 20 December 2011; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012).

  investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (Prynda v. Ukraine,no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine,no. 42752/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),.

• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 12991/10

  MANDRYKA v. UKRAINE

  Applicant's rights as a victim were not properly safeguarded (Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 74, 4 April 2006; Masneva v. Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 56, 20 December 2011; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012),.

  investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for lack of efficiency (Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine, no. 42752/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),.

 
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 13094/19

  BOGUTA AND TERESHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for the lack of efficiency (Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine, no. 42752/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),.

  investigation criticised by the national authorities themselves for the lack of efficiency (Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Pozhyvotko v. Ukraine, no. 42752/08, § 40, 17 October 2013).

• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 35431/21

  LEZNYUK v. UKRAINE

  applicant's rights as a victim were not properly safeguarded (Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 74, 4 April 2006; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012; Masneva v. Ukraine, no. 5952/07, § 56, 20 December 2011),.
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 28732/09

  SANSAL c. TURQUIE

  De plus, la Cour rappelle que la responsabilité de l'État au titre de l'article 2 de la Convention trouve également à s'appliquer dans les cas des accidents de la route ou de la sécurité routière lorsque l'atteinte au droit à la vie ou à l'intégrité physique n'était pas volontaire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Irena Rajkowska c. Pologne (déc.), no 37393/02, 27 novembre 2007, Railean c. Moldova, no 23401/04, § 30, 5 janvier 2010, Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 72, 24 mai 2011, Igor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, et Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 47384/11

  SIDIKA IMREN v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court has found on many occasions that the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome, may lead to the finding of a procedural violation under Article 2 (see, for example, Silih, cited above, § 211; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 52, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11

  VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE

  The Court has already examined a number of factually similar cases against Ukraine and concluded that such repeated remittal orders disclosed a serious deficiency in the criminal investigation of a case (see, for example, Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, § 81, 15 December 2011, and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 27.11.2012 - 29474/09

  TAUTKUS v. LITHUANIA

  In line with its well-established practice, the Strasbourg Court should confine its examination of the application to an evaluation of the domestic investigation into the matter (see Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 54, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 36783/09

  ARIK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 67385/09

  KAYA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.05.2016 - 78587/12

  PREDA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 71711/10

  PETRE c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 49626/07

  TIKHOMIROVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 47021/10

  ÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 58200/10

  DEMIR c. TURQUIE