Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08, 14667/09, 52431/10, 14182/11, 56569/11, 56577/11, 66832/11, 4363/12, 20191/12, 24365/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OZDOYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Violation of Article 5 - Right to ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR - 14667/09 (anhängig)
YEVLOYEVA AND TOMOVA v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08
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.
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08
As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish whether they were actually incurred and whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01
LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08
The Court has found on a number of occasions that unacknowledged detention constitutes a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08
The Court furthermore finds that compensation in respect of loss of earnings may apply to close relatives of disappeared persons, including spouses, elderly parents and minor children (see, among other authorities, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 213, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94
CICEK v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 9782/08
The Court has found on a number of occasions that unacknowledged detention constitutes a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly grave violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
- EGMR, 01.03.2022 - 32267/08
SALA KHAMIDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Tsechoyev v. Russia (application no. 52270/10) Background information 63. In March 2004 the applicant's brother, Mr Tamerlan Tsechoyev, disappeared following his arrest by Ingushetia FSB officers (see Ozdoyev and Others v. Russia [Committee], nos. 9782/08 and 9 others, 27 August 2019).