Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 11542/15 |
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10
DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 11542/15
16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009 and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, ECHR 31 May 2016)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their application with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction of their relative. - EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR - 11542/15
(d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicants" missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?. - EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01
TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR - 11542/15
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants" relative's abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above, §§ 181-84; Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII)? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants" submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event?.
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 44776/09
GANATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Pashayeva and Musaitova v. Russia (no. 11542/15).The Government also pointed out that the applicants in all of the applications, particularly in Astamirova and Others v. Russia (no. 9616/12), Daniyeva v. Russia (no. 25514/13), Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13), Akhyadova and Others v. Russia (no. 73542/14), Pashayeva and Musaitova v. Russia (no. 11542/15) and Taysumova v. Russia (no. 50260/15) had remained passive and had not maintained contact with the investigating authorities for a significant amount of time.
Turning to the circumstances of the cases, the Court notes that in Ganatova v. Russia (no. 44776/09), Makhiyeva and Shoipova v. Russia (no. 5552/12), Astamirova and Others (no. 9616/12), Daniyeva (no. 25514/13), Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 26859/13) and Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13) the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within less than ten years of the incidents and the initiation of the related investigations (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 166, ECHR 2009); in the remaining cases, Tumsoyeva and Others (no. 25531/13), Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14), Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) and Taysumova (no. 50260/15) the applicants lodged their complaints with the Court within less than eleven years of the incidents and the initiation of the related investigations.
The Court also notes certain lulls in the criminal investigations (see in Ganatova (no. 44776/09) paragraph 24 above; in Makhiyeva and Shoipova (no. 5552/12) paragraph 57 above; in Astamirova and Others (no. 9616/12) paragraph 76 above; in Daniyeva (no. 25514/13) paragraphs 98 and 99 above; in Tumsoyeva and Others (no. 25531/13) paragraphs 114 and 116 above; in Aliyevy (no. 26859/13) paragraphs 149 and 151 above; in Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13) paragraph 173 above and the appended table; in Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) paragraph 194 above; in Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) paragraph 212 above; and in Taysumova (no. 50260/15) paragraph 236 above).
Moreover, during the aforementioned periods of suspension, in Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15), upon being informed of those procedural decisions, the applicants lodged court complaints against the investigators seeking the resumption of the investigation (see paragraphs 202 and 223 above).
The Court notes, in particular, that in Ganatova (no. 44776/09) the applicant was contacted by Mr S., who stated that he had been arrested by service personnel and then detained at the premises of a military base together with Mr Isa Kukayev (see paragraph 13 above); in Makhiyeva and Shoipova (no. 5552/12) several State officials stated that they had been ordered by the regional operative headquarters of the Temporary United Group Alignment in Khankala to provide support for the armed men who later abducted the applicants" relatives (see paragraphs 39 and 40 above); in Astamirova and Others (no. 9616/12) the Zavodskoy ROVD confirmed to the investigators that a special operation had been carried out in the area at the time of the abduction (see paragraph 72 above); in Daniyeva (no. 25514/13) and Tumsoyeva and Others (no. 25531/13) the applicants alleged that the perpetrators had used APCs to abduct their relatives (see paragraphs 89 and 107 above); in Aliyevy (no. 26859/13) the first applicant had recognised one of the perpetrators as an officer of the special-purpose militia units (see paragraph 132 above); in Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13) the fact that the perpetrators had been State agents was established by the domestic courts (see paragraph 180 above); in Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) in two days after the abduction the perpetrators returned to the applicant's home in an APC (see paragraph 183 above); in Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) the Department of the Interior office in Vedeno district informed the investigators that the applicants" relative had been arrested by service personnel from the Vostok battalion (see paragraph 210 above); lastly, in Taysumova (no. 50260/15), the abductors were of Slavic appearance, spoke unaccented Russian and used a bus which could not have gone unnoticed through checkpoints.
In Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15), the applicants also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.
Given the above findings regarding the State's responsibility for the abductions of the applicants" relatives and the failure to carry out meaningful investigations into the incidents (see paragraphs 293 above), the Court finds that the applicants in Makhiyeva and Shoipova (no. 5552/12), Daniyeva (no. 25514/13), Tumsoyeva and Others (no. 25531/13), Aliyevy (no. 26859/13), Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13), Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14), Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) and Taysumova (no. 50260/15) must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of both their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.
As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15), the Court has already stated in similar cases that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention (see Zhebrailova and Others v. Russia, no. 40166/07, § 84, 26 March 2015, and Aliyev and Gadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 11059/12, § 110, 12 July 2016).
The applicants in Daniyeva (no. 25514/13), Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) made their calculations on the basis of the minimum salary in Russia.
The Government claimed that in Ganatova (no. 44776/09), Daniyeva (no. 25514/13), Aliyevy (no. 26859/13), Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13), Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) the applicants had failed to provide any evidence of their missing relatives" employment.
In Aliyevy (no. 26859/13), Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13), Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) the Government also mentioned that it remained open for the applicants to apply for social benefits for the loss of the breadwinners in their families.
In Aliyevy (no. 26859/13), Magomadova and Timirsultanova (no. 26874/13), Akhyadova and Others (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova (no. 11542/15) the Government noted that the costs and expenses were excessive and unnecessary considering the simplicity of the cases and the relevant experience of the applicants" representatives.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in Makhiyeva and Shoipova v. Russia (no. 5552/12), Daniyeva v. Russia (no. 25514/13), Tumsoyeva andOthers v. Russia (no. 25531/13), Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 26859/13), Magomadova and Timirsultanova v. Russia (no. 26874/13), Akhyadova and Others v. Russia (no. 73542/14), Pashayeva and Musaitova v. Russia (no. 11542/15) and Taysumova v. Russia (no. 50260/15), on account of their mental suffering caused by their relatives" disappearance and the authorities" response to their suffering;.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Akhyadova and Others v. Russia (no. 73542/14) and Pashayeva and Musaitova v. Russia (no. 11542/15);.
11542/15.