Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 14667/09 |
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR - 14667/09
(e) 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 relatives 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 - 14667/09
16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 181-84, ECHR 2009, and 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, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08
OZDOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
At about 10 p.m. on the same date, the armed men who had apprehended Mr Ozdoyev and Mr Tsechoyev allegedly abducted Mr Rasukhan Yevloyev and Mr Ibragim Izmaylov (see Yevloyeva and Tomova, no. 14667/09; see also paragraphs 56 and 57 below).Yevloyeva and Tomova v. Russia (no. 14667/09).
Yevloyeva and Tomova v. Russia (no. 14667/09).
In Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09) the Government noted that a power of attorney had been issued on 17 February 2002 - that is to say two years before the alleged abduction of the first applicant's relative.
The documents provided by the parties in Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08), Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09), Maltsagovy (no. 52431/10), Zanziyevy (no. 14182/11), Tutkhanovy (no. 56569/11), Makayeva (no. 56577/11), Murdalova and Elmurzayev (no. 66832/11), Dzhabrailov (no. 4363/12), Tayubova (no. 20191/12) and Yunusova (no. 24365/12) show that the applicants maintained a reasonable level of contact with the authorities, cooperated with the respective investigations and, where appropriate, took steps to acquaint themselves with the progress of the respective proceedings and to speed them up, in the hope of securing a more effective outcome.
In respect of Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09) the Court does not observe discernible lulls that could, along with the applicants' lack of contact with the authorities, have negatively influenced their compliance with the admissibility criteria (see paragraph 75 above and the appended table).
In Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08), Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09) and Tayubova (no. 20191/12) the abductions took place in the vicinity of checkpoints.
In Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08) and Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09) the Government did not comment on the merits of the applications.
Lastly, the applicants in Yevloyeva and Tomova v. Russia (no. 14667/09) noted that the Government had not complied with their obligation to protect life by taking measures aimed at preventing the abduction of their relatives.
The Court notes that in Yevloyeva and Tomova v. Russia (no. 14667/09) the applicants' complaint under Article 2 of the Convention also encompasses an allegation of failure to take measures to protect their two relatives against a known risk to their lives.
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 306 above), the Court finds that the applicants in Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08), Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09), Maltsagovy (no. 52431/10), Zanziyevy (no. 14182/11), Tutkhanovy (no. 56569/11), Makayeva (no. 56577/11), Murdalova and Elmurzayev (no. 66832/11) and Dzhabrailov (no. 4363/12) 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 their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.
The Court furthermore confirms that since it has been established that the applicants' relatives were detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgement of such detention, this constitutes a particularly grave violation of the right to liberty and security of persons, as enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, in respect of the applicants' relatives in Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08), Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09), Maltsagovy (no. 52431/10), Zanziyevy (no. 14182/11), Tutkhanovy (no. 56569/11), Makayeva (no. 56577/11), Murdalova and Elmurzayev (no. 66832/11), Dzhabrailov (no. 4363/12), and Yunusova (no. 24365/12).
The applicants in Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09), Maltsagovy (no. 52431/10), Murdalova and Elmurzayev (no. 66832/11) and Yunusova (no. 24365/12) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuary Tables, using domestic subsistence levels and the applicable inflation rates.
In respect of Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08) and Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09) the Government stated that the first applicant had not proved that the applicants' missing relative had been the family breadwinner, but that even if that had been the case, it remained open for them to apply for social benefits to compensate for the loss of family breadwinner.
In respect of Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14), Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09) and Yunusova (no. 24365/12) the Government stated that the amounts claimed were excessive.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08), Yevloyeva and Tomova v. Russia (no. 14667/09), Maltsagovy v. Russia (no. 52431/10), Zanziyevy v. Russia (no. 14182/11), Tutkhanovy v. Russia (no. 56569/11), Makayeva v. Russia (no. 56577/11), Murdalova and Elmurzayev v. Russia (no. 66832/11) and Dzhabrailov v. Russia (no. 4363/12), on account of their relatives' disappearance and the authorities' response to their suffering;.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants' relatives in Ozdoyev and Tsechoyev (no. 9782/08), Yevloyeva and Tomova (no. 14667/09), Maltsagovy (no. 52431/10), Zanziyevy (no. 14182/11), Tutkhanovy (no. 56569/11), Makayeva (no. 56577/11), Murdalova and Elmurzayev (no. 66832/11), Dzhabrailov (no. 4363/12) and Yunusova (no. 24365/12);.
14667/09.