Rechtsprechung
| EGMR - 59117/11, 66832/11, 2664/12, 13916/12, 17499/12, 20191/12, 40161/12, 77701/12, 3765/13, 67274/13 |
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10
TIMERBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 59117/11
Application no. (17499/12 Tasuyev and Others v. Russia)}}.The applicants in all the applications, save for those in Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) and Tayubova v. Russia (no. 20191/12), complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State's failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents.
The applicants in all the applications complain, in essence, under Article 13 of the Convention of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention; the applicants in Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11) and Magomadova v. Russia (no. 67274/13) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention; the applicants in Mukhtarova and Others v. Russia (no. 13916/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 3 of the Convention; and the applicants in Tasuyev and Others (no. 17499/12) complain of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of their complaint under Article 5 of the Convention.
The first applicant in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) complains under Articles 3, 5 and 13, in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, that State agents tortured him and unlawfully deprived him of liberty for the period of time stated in the Appendix and that no effective investigation into the matter was carried out.
The applicants in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) complain of a violation of their right under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the unlawful seizure of the car by the abductors.
In respect of the applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), Chatuyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3765/13) and Magomadova v. Russia (67274/13), have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on the part of the applicants "excessive or unexplained delays" in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
In respect of all the applications, except for applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) and Tayubova v. Russia (no. 20191/12), has the applicants" mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, and the authorities" alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearances been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?.
In respect of Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), was the first applicant deprived of his liberty during the period of time listed in the appendix and subjected to ill-treatment by State agents, contrary to the provisions of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention?.
In respect of Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), were the applicants deprived of their property, contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in the course of the abduction of their relative?.
(a) any information, supported by relevant documents, which is capable of rebutting the applicants" allegations that their missing relatives and the first applicant in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) were abducted by State servicemen;.
(b) a complete list of all investigative actions taken in connection with the applicants" complaints about the disappearance of their missing relatives and the complaint of the first applicant in Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) regarding his alleged deprivation of liberty and ill-treatment, in chronological order, indicating dates and the authorities involved, as well as a brief summary of the findings;.
17499/12.
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 2664/12
ISMAILOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 59117/11
Several other men were abducted on 30 July 2002 in Grozny under similar circumstances (see Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12) and Magomadova v. Russia (no. 67274/13) below).Application no. 2664/12 (Ismailovy v. Russia)}}.
According to the applicant, ten other men were abducted in Grozny on the same day under similar circumstances (see Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11) and Ismailovy (no. 2664/12).
The applicants in all the applications, save for those in Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) and Tayubova v. Russia (no. 20191/12), complain, invoking Article 3 of the Convention, that they are suffering severe mental distress due to the indifference demonstrated by the authorities in respect of the abduction and subsequent disappearance of their close relatives and the State's failure to conduct an effective investigation into the incidents.
In respect of the applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12), Chatuyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 3765/13) and Magomadova v. Russia (67274/13), have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on the part of the applicants "excessive or unexplained delays" in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relatives, have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity, which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
In respect of all the applications, except for applications Ismailovy v. Russia (no. 2664/12), Tasuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 17499/12) and Tayubova v. Russia (no. 20191/12), has the applicants" mental suffering in connection with the disappearance of their close relatives, and the authorities" alleged indifference in that respect and their alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into their disappearances been sufficiently serious to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants?.
2664/12.
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR - 59117/11
(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 disappearances 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, 22.01.2019 - 50556/08
KUKURKHOYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11).In particular, in the following six cases, Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova, Akhmetkhanova and Others, Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13) the applicants brought formal complaints within six days of the abductions of their relatives (see paragraphs 8, 12, 24, 27, 29, 46, 52, 65, 73, 132, 136, 182 and 183 above).
In Umarov and Others (no. 5691/11) and Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11) the lulls did not exceed three years and one month and three years and eight months respectively (see paragraphs 121, 125, 143 and 144 above).
The Court also takes into account that in Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11) and Kosumova (no. 65052/11) the periods of inactivity were not particularly significant and that the applicants in those cases demonstrated an active stance in the proceedings as a whole.
In Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova, Akhmetkhanova and Others, Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova (no. 65052/11) and Isayevy (no. 70640/11) they also spoke unaccented Russian.
In Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova (no. 65052/11) and Isayevy (no. 70640/11) they arrived in UAZs, a brand of military vehicle.
The Court notes that in Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11) the applicants received some news about their missing relative's fate after his abduction.
In Akhmetkhanova and Others, Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova (no. 65052/11) and Isayevy (no. 70640/11) the Government submitted that the complaints should be dismissed, because the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations of enforced disappearances perpetrated by State service personnel.
Furthermore, the applicants in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova (no. 65052/11), Isayevy (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13) alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention.
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 enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants" relatives in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09), Mestoyevy (no. 66394/10), Umarov and Others (no. 5691/11), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Isayevy (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13).
In addition, the applicants in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova (no. 65052/11), Isayevy (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3 of the Convention in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
As regards the alleged breach of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention as submitted by the applicants in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Isayevy (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13) 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 Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova (no. 65052/11) and Isayevy (no. 70640/11) relied on the minimum monthly salary in Russia.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants" relatives in Kukurkhoyeva v. Russia (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva v. Russia (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova v. Russia (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others v. Russia (no. 43706/09), Mestoyevy v. Russia (no. 66394/10), Umarov and Others v. Russia (no. 5691/11), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia (no. 59117/11), Isayevy v. Russia (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova v. Russia (no. 59203/13) on account of their unlawful detention;.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Kosumova v. Russia (no. 65052/11), Isayevy (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Kukurkhoyeva (no. 50556/08), Shavkhayeva and Bekayeva (no. 51029/08), Zakriyeva and Muradova (no. 22667/09), Akhmetkhanova and Others (no. 43706/09), Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva (no. 59117/11), Isayevy (no. 70640/11) and Demelkhanova (no. 59203/13);.
59117/11.
- VG Potsdam, 09.06.2017 - 6 K 39/17
Asyl, Ausreiseaufforderung und Abschiebungsandrohung Russ. Föderation
Der EGMR-Beschwerdevorgang Nr. 3765/13 ("Chatuyeva and others ./. Russia") als verbundener Teil zum Beschwerdevorgang Nr. 59117/11 ("Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva ./. Russia") - Stand 2. März 2016 - ist von der Internetseite des EGMR abgerufen und ins Verfahren eingeführt worden.Das Gericht hat sich nicht die erforderliche Überzeugungsgewissheit bilden können, dass die Klägerin im Zeitpunkt der Ausreise aus der Russischen Föderation in der von ihr behaupteten Weise in Anknüpfung an die EGMR-Beschwerde Nr. 3765/13 in asylrelevanter Weise in den Blick relevanter Verfolger geraten war oder nunmehr bei Rückkehr einer entsprechenden Verfolgungsgefahr ausgesetzt sein wird.