Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GURBANOV v. ARMENIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  GURBANOV v. ARMENIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  However, that Article cannot reasonably be interpreted as requiring such a remedy in respect of any supposed grievance under the Convention that a person may have, no matter how unmeritorious; the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).
• EGMR, 21.06.1988 - 10126/82

  Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  It has held that the admissibility decision in a case is not binding in that respect, but may provide useful pointers (ibid., §§ 54 and 55, and see also Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v. Austria, 21 June 1988, § 27, Series A no. 139).
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12886/16

  POLAT v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  In view of the above, and having regard to its relevant case-law on the matter (see, for instance, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 208, 6 June 2013, and the references cited therein; mutatis mutandis, Polat v. Austria, no. 12886/16, § 48, 20 July 2021, in which complaints about the treatment of the applicants' relatives' bodies were examined under Article 8 of the Convention; and, in contrast, Akpinar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007, in which a complaint about the mutilation of the applicants' relatives' bodies was examined under Article 3 of the Convention), the Court, as master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), considers that the complaints raised by the applicant should be addressed under Article 8 of the Convention alone.

 
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 57906/18

  VERES v. SPAIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  Relying on its consistent case-law in relation to this issue (see, for instance, Belosevic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57242/13, § 47, 3 December 2019, with further references), and having regard in particular to the applicant's complaints, which referred firstly to the Armenian authorities' failure to return the body and were subsequently amended to challenge the excessive delay in returning the body (see paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that the applicant's failure to inform it promptly about the return of his son's body did not amount to an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention (see also, mutatis mutandis, Veres v. Spain, no. 57906/18, §§ 59-60, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 27.02.2007 - 56760/00

  AKPINAR AND ALTUN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  In view of the above, and having regard to its relevant case-law on the matter (see, for instance, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 208, 6 June 2013, and the references cited therein; mutatis mutandis, Polat v. Austria, no. 12886/16, § 48, 20 July 2021, in which complaints about the treatment of the applicants' relatives' bodies were examined under Article 8 of the Convention; and, in contrast, Akpinar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007, in which a complaint about the mutilation of the applicants' relatives' bodies was examined under Article 3 of the Convention), the Court, as master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), considers that the complaints raised by the applicant should be addressed under Article 8 of the Convention alone.
• EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 18071/05

  MASKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  In view of the above, and having regard to its relevant case-law on the matter (see, for instance, Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, § 208, 6 June 2013, and the references cited therein; mutatis mutandis, Polat v. Austria, no. 12886/16, § 48, 20 July 2021, in which complaints about the treatment of the applicants' relatives' bodies were examined under Article 8 of the Convention; and, in contrast, Akpinar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, §§ 84-87, 27 February 2007, in which a complaint about the mutilation of the applicants' relatives' bodies was examined under Article 3 of the Convention), the Court, as master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 114, 20 March 2018), considers that the complaints raised by the applicant should be addressed under Article 8 of the Convention alone.
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 57242/13

  BELOSEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  Relying on its consistent case-law in relation to this issue (see, for instance, Belosevic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57242/13, § 47, 3 December 2019, with further references), and having regard in particular to the applicant's complaints, which referred firstly to the Armenian authorities' failure to return the body and were subsequently amended to challenge the excessive delay in returning the body (see paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that the applicant's failure to inform it promptly about the return of his son's body did not amount to an abuse of the right of application within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention (see also, mutatis mutandis, Veres v. Spain, no. 57906/18, §§ 59-60, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 30.01.2020 - 35746/11

  SARIBEKYAN AND BALYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  The Court's assessment 35. In assessing the respondent State's arguments as to the effectiveness of the domestic remedies available to the applicant in the present case, the Court will refer to its principled findings in the recent case of Saribekyan and Balyan v. Azerbaijan (no. 35746/11, §§ 45-48, 30 January 2020).
• EGMR, 01.04.2021 - 45322/17

  M.B. AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  Having that as a starting-point, in the present case the Court does not discern any further element entitling it to find that there was any ethnic prejudice in the handling of the criminal file involving the applicant's son (see, mutatis mutandis, M.B. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 45322/17, §§ 106-08, 1 April 2021).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 14102/02

  BEKAURI v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.2023 - 7432/17

  As he was represented by a professional lawyer, such behaviour had to be characterised as an intention to mislead the Court on a decisive issue for the determination of the case as it related directly to the victim status of the applicant (the respondent Government cited Bekauri v. Georgia, no. 14102/02, § 21, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

• EGMR, 19.12.2023 - 54363/17

  NARAYAN AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

  Their bodies were found close to the village of Chinari in the Tavush region of Armenia (see also Gurbanov v. Armenia, no. 7432/17).