Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN v. AZERBAIJAN AND HUNGARY

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) (Azerbaijan);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) (Azerbaijan);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MAKUCHYAN AND MINASYAN v. HUNGARY AND AZERBAIJAN

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 18.02.2010 - 54131/08

  BAYSAKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  Relying on the UNHCR Note on Diplomatic Assurances and the Court's case-law (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161; Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 54131/08, § 51, 18 February 2010; Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, §§ 55-56, 1 April 2010; and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 147, ECHR 2008), the Armenian Government argued that the assurances received by the Hungarian authorities from Azerbaijan had been insufficient.
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 24268/08

  KLEIN v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  Relying on the UNHCR Note on Diplomatic Assurances and the Court's case-law (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161; Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 54131/08, § 51, 18 February 2010; Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, §§ 55-56, 1 April 2010; and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 147, ECHR 2008), the Armenian Government argued that the assurances received by the Hungarian authorities from Azerbaijan had been insufficient.
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  [27] See, inter alia, Dvorski v. Croatia, no. 25703/11, § 82, 20 October 2015; Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013; and for older cases, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77, and Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11.

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2018 - 33234/12

  Litauen und Rumänien mitverantwortlich für CIA-Folter

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  In certain circumstances, where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation on how the events in question occurred (see Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12, §§ 492-493, 31 May 2018, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 11.06.2002 - 36042/97

  WILLIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  Discrimination is treating differently, without an objective and reasonable justification, persons in relevantly similar situations (see Willis v. the United Kingdom, no. 36042/97, § 48, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 42722/02

  STOICA v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  Finally, having recognised that proving racial motivation will often be extremely difficult in practice (see, among many other authorities, Mi?¾igárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 120, 14 December 2010), the Court did not rule out requiring a respondent Government to disprove an arguable allegation of discrimination in certain cases of alleged discrimination and, if they fail to do so, find a violation of Article 14 of the Convention on that basis (see Nachova, cited above, § 157; Stoica v. Romania, no. 42722/02, § 130, 4 March 2008; and Adam v. Slovakia, no. 68066/12, § 91, 26 July 2016).
• EGMR, 17.01.1970 - 2689/65

  DELCOURT c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  [27] See, inter alia, Dvorski v. Croatia, no. 25703/11, § 82, 20 October 2015; Erkapic v. Croatia, no. 51198, §§ 80-82, 25 April 2013; and for older cases, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, § 48, Series A no. 77, and Delcourt v. Belgium, 17 January 1970, § 31, Series A no. 11.
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  A failure on a Government's part to submit any such information that is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicants" allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 76, 15 January 2009, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  Relying on the UNHCR Note on Diplomatic Assurances and the Court's case-law (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161; Baysakov and Others v. Ukraine, no. 54131/08, § 51, 18 February 2010; Klein v. Russia, no. 24268/08, §§ 55-56, 1 April 2010; and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 147, ECHR 2008), the Armenian Government argued that the assurances received by the Hungarian authorities from Azerbaijan had been insufficient.
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.05.2020 - 17247/13

  This discretion as to the manner of execution of a judgment reflects the freedom of choice attached to the primary obligation of the Contracting States under the Convention to secure the rights and freedoms guaranteed (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 202, ECHR 2004-II).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  On the contrary, States are to be all the more stringent when punishing their own agents for the commission of serious life-endangering crimes than they are with ordinary offenders, because what is at stake is not only the issue of the individual criminal-law liability of the perpetrators but also the State's duty to combat the sense of impunity the offenders may consider themselves to enjoy by virtue of their very office (see Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, § 157, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 24.10.2023 - 42429/16

  MEMEDOVA AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the applicants have put forward sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences as to make a convincing prima facie case of indirect discrimination, both in the proceedings before the domestic courts and in the proceedings before the Court (see, for example, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, cited above, § 178, and Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, § 218, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 54363/17

  NARAYAN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  A failure on the part of a Government to submit any such information that is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicants' allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention (see Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, § 224, 26 May 2020).

 
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 29804/16

  TSYOGE FON MANTEYFEL v. UKRAINE

  In the light of the principles established in its case-law (see, as a recent authority, Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, § 224, 26 May 2020) and considering all the material in its possession, the Court finds that that there has been no failure by the Government to comply with Articles 34 or 38 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 37882/13

  E.G. c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  En effet, l'exécution de la condamnation imposée dans le contexte du droit à la vie doit être regardée comme faisant partie intégrante de l'obligation procédurale pesant à charge de l'État en vertu de cette disposition (Kitanovska Stanojkovic et autres c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 2319/14, § 32, 13 octobre 2016, Akeliene c. Lithuanie, no 54917/13, § 85, 16 octobre 2018, et Makuchyan et Minasyan c. Azerbaïdjan et Hongrie, no 17247/13, § 50, 26 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 73975/16

  A AND B v. GEORGIA

  The Court finds this aspect of the case to be particularly troubling because it expects Member States to be all the more stringent when investigating and, where appropriate, punishing their own law-enforcement officers for the commission of serious crimes, including domestic violence and violence against women in general, than they are with ordinary offenders, because what is at stake is not only the issue of the individual criminal-law liability of the perpetrators but also the State's duty to combat any sense of impunity felt by the offenders by virtue of their very office, and maintain public confidence in and respect for the law-enforcement system (see, mutatis mutandis, Vazagashvili and Shanava v. Georgia, no. 50375/07, § 92, 18 July 2019, and Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, § 157, 26 May 2020).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 68490/14

  NATALIA LUNGU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  En outre, l'exécution sans délai injustifié de la condamnation imposée dans le contexte du droit à la vie doit être regardée comme faisant partie intégrante de l'obligation procédurale pesant à charge de l'État en vertu de cette disposition (Kitanovska Stanojkovic et autres c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 2319/14, § 32, 13 octobre 2016, et Makuchyan et Minasyan c. Azerbaïdjan et Hongrie, no 17247/13, § 50, 26 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 09.02.2021 - 69829/11

  VERONICA CIOBANU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Étant donné toutefois que les faits se sont déroulés dans un autre pays que l'État défendeur, elle doit examiner proprio motu cette question (Makuchyan et Minasyan c. Azerbaïdjan et Hongrie, no 17247/13, § 47, 26 mai 2020).