Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MATKAVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione loci;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case - general (Article 38 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MATKAVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (20)

• EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 42525/07

  ANANYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  As a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhausting domestic remedies (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 72, 10 January 2012).
• EGMR, 19.10.2012 - 43370/04

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  The principles governing the application of the spatial concept of jurisdiction - already set out in Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 55721/07, §§ 138-39 and 142, ECHR 2011) - have been developed in, inter alia, Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and subsequently in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia ([GC], no. 13216/05, § 168, 16 June 2015) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, § 98, 23 February 2016), and reiterated in Georgia v. Russia (II) (cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 29.01.2009 - 6954/02

  MALTABAR AND MALTABAR v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  The Court reiterates that, by contrast with an objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (which must be raised by the respondent Government), it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because the respondent Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III, and Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, §§ 80-81, 29 January 2009).

 
• EGMR, 23.02.2016 - 11138/10

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  The principles governing the application of the spatial concept of jurisdiction - already set out in Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 55721/07, §§ 138-39 and 142, ECHR 2011) - have been developed in, inter alia, Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2012 (extracts)) and subsequently in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia ([GC], no. 13216/05, § 168, 16 June 2015) and Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 11138/10, § 98, 23 February 2016), and reiterated in Georgia v. Russia (II) (cited above, § 116).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  Where such a jurisdictional link existed, the Court has held that, having regard to its fundamental character, Article 2 of the Convention contains a procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation into alleged breaches of its substantive limb (see Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 298, ECHR 2011 (extracts); Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 169, 14 April 2015, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 229, 30 March 2016).
• EGMR, 05.10.2021 - 48347/08

  BEKOYEVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  Secondly, the applicants did not remain inactive nor did they fail to display due diligence (contrast, mutatis mutandis, Bekoyeva and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 48347/08, 5 October 2021).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 43326/05

  LEONIDIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  Given that the Court has found that Russia exercised jurisdiction over Abkhaz territory and the actions of the de facto authorities there, either those de facto authorities or the Russian authorities themselves were expected to carry out an effective investigation into that possibility and determine whether R.K.-O. had been on active duty when he killed Giga Otkhozoria (compare Leonidis v. Greece, no. 43326/05, § 58, 8 January 2009), which is a factor indicative of State responsibility (see Carter, cited above, § 166).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 60167/00

  PAD AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  That approach was followed in a series of cases including Isaak and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 44587/98, 28 September 2006), Pad and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 60167/00, 28 June 2007), Andreou v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 45653/99, 3 June 2008) and Al-Skeini and Others (cited above, §§ 133-37); see also as a most recent authority on this particular topic Carter (cited above, § 123-132).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  The Court reiterates that, by contrast with an objection as to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (which must be raised by the respondent Government), it cannot set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because the respondent Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I; Blecic v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 68, ECHR 2006-III, and Maltabar and Maltabar v. Russia, no. 6954/02, §§ 80-81, 29 January 2009).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 3963/18

  As provided by this Article, an engagement undertaken by a Contracting State is confined to "securing" the listed rights and freedoms for persons within its own "jurisdiction" (see, among many others, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 86, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 8938/07

  KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2008 - 15591/03

  SELEZNEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.09.2021 - 20914/07

  CARTER v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2022 - 8019/16

  UKRAINE AND THE NETHERLANDS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.04.2011 - 25091/07

  ENUKIDZE AND GIRGVLIANI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 16.09.2014 - 29750/09

  HASSAN c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 839/02

  MASLOVA AND NALBANDOV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 17912/15

  KUTAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 39611/18

  GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (IV)

• EGMR, 28.03.2023 - 39611/18
  The Court notes that those cases are also the subject of three pending individual applications (N.G. and N.B. v. Russia, no. 44677/21; Matkava and Others v. Russia, no. 3963/18; and Tatunashvili v. Russia, no. 41776/18).

  [12] Application no. 3963/18 (Matkava and Others v. Russia) is pending before the Court.