Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);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);Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (27)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.11.2011 - 35254/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  Having regard to the findings relating to Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraphs 153-156 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there have also been violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 94, 22 November 2011; Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, § 78, 2 July 2013; and Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, § 85, 18 June 2015).
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  Having regard to the findings relating to Article 2 of the Convention (see paragraphs 153-156 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there have also been violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 94, 22 November 2011; Gülbahar Özer and Others v. Turkey, no. 44125/06, § 78, 2 July 2013; and Fanziyeva v. Russia, no. 41675/08, § 85, 18 June 2015).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 56, ECHR 2004-XI).

• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-147, Series A no. 324, and Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 56, ECHR 2004-XI).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  It is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation for any injuries or deaths suffered in custody, failing which a clear issue arises under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII, and Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 92, ECHR 2010).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  However, the effectiveness of an investigation cannot be gauged simply on the basis of the number of reports made, witnesses questioned or other investigative measures taken (see Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 144, ECHR 2002-IV, and Pankov v. Bulgaria, no. 12773/03, § 51, 7 October 2010).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 20652/92

  DJAVIT AN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  Thus, the Court considers that, by exercising effective control over Nagorno Karabakh and the surrounding territories, Armenia is under an obligation to secure in that area the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and its responsibility under the Convention cannot be confined to the acts of its own soldiers or officials operating in Nagorno Karabakh but is also engaged by virtue of the acts of the local administration which survives by virtue of Armenian military and other support (see Zalyan and Others, cited above, §§ 214-215, as well as, mutatis mutandis, Djavit An v. Turkey, no. 20652/92, §§ 18-23, ECHR 2003-III; and Amer v. Turkey, no. 25720/02, §§ 47-49, 13 January 2009).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  In order to be effective, an investigation must firstly be adequate, that is it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 113, ECHR 2005-VII, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 172).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, § 67, 24 October 2013; Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 121, 19 December 2013; and Metin Gültekin and Others v. Turkey, no. 17081/06, § 33, 6 October 2015).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, § 67, 24 October 2013; Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 121, 19 December 2013; and Metin Gültekin and Others v. Turkey, no. 17081/06, § 33, 6 October 2015).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 44425/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.03.2016 - 36894/04

  ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 12773/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 17081/06

  GÜLTEKIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 25720/02

  AMER v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Metin Gültekin and Others, cited above, §§ 32 and 33; Beker, cited above, §§ 41-43; and Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 133, 24 November 2016.
• EGMR, 20.10.2026 - 34859/24

  KAPLLANAJ v. ALBANIA

  Failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the capacity of the investigation to establish the circumstances of the case and, where appropriate, the identity of those responsible, and is liable to fall foul of the required measure of effectiveness (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 135, 24 November 2016, with further references, and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 126, 5 April 2022).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 67351/13

  HOVHANNISYAN AND KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 59 The Court notes that it has already examined in other cases the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction over the territory in question and found that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories and that, therefore, complaints pertaining to events that happened in that area came within the jurisdiction of Armenia for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 169-86, ECHR 2015; Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 123-27, 24 November 2016 and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 86-92, 5 April 2022, specifically concerning the deaths of conscripts during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia, no. 57129/10, § 56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh).

  Failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the investigation's ability to establish the circumstances of the case and, where appropriate, the identity of those responsible and is liable to fall foul of the required measure of effectiveness (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 135, 24 November 2016, with further references, and Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 126).

• EGMR, 17.09.2026 - 54266/17

  MARGARYAN v. ARMENIA

  That is, it must be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 134, 24 November 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA and 1 other application

  Failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the investigation's ability to establish the circumstances of the case and, where appropriate, the identity of those responsible and is liable to fall foul of the required measure of effectiveness (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 135, 24 November 2016, with further references, and Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 126).
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 40410/07

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA

  Such conclusion would be purely speculative and remains within the realm of hypothesis (see, mutatis mutandis, Ataman v. Turkey, no. 46252/99, §§ 46-53, 27 April 2006; Durdu, cited above, §§ 59-61; Babat and Others, cited above, §§ 36-38; Varyan, cited above, § 104; Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 123; and Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 130-31, 24 November 2016).
• EGMR, 26.03.2026 - 19234/18

  SHABRATSKYY AND SHABRATSKA v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 71 That being so, the Court considers that the authorities cannot be regarded as having discharged their obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the death of the applicants' son, which occurred while he was in their care (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 155, 24 November 2016, and Ohanjanyan, cited above, § 160).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has already examined in other cases the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction over the territory in question and found that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories and that, therefore, complaints pertaining to events that happened in that area came within the jurisdiction of Armenia for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 169-86, ECHR 2015; and Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 123-27, 24 November 2016, specifically concerning the death of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia, no. 57129/10, § 56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh).
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 48998/14

  VARYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has previously examined the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction in other cases concerning fatalities during military service in Nagorno-Karabakh and found that there was a jurisdictional link for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention between Armenia and individuals who had died while performing military service in the territory in question (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 123-27, 24 November 2016; Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 86-92, 5 April 2022; Dimaksyan v. Armenia, no. 29906/14, §§ 43 and 44, 17 October 2023; and Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan v. Armenia, no. 67351/13, §§ 59-63, 17 October 2023, concerning the deaths of conscripts during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia no. 57129/10, §§ 55-56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh).
• EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 3673/11

  MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA

  The applicable general principles have been summarised in the Grand Chamber's judgment in the case of Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, §§ 169-82, 14 April 2015) and in the Court's judgment in the case of Muradyan (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 132-136, 24 November 2016).
• EGMR, 09.01.2025 - 51448/15

  PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14

  DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 25.04.2023 - 70665/11

  OHANJANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 43082/14

  HAMZAYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 69736/12

  MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 20.07.2021 - 12999/15

  AVANESYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 22.12.2020 - 45024/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 623/13

  VOSKANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 25589/16

  ALIYEV v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 74566/16

  HAKOBYAN v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 25576/16

  ALLAHVERDIYEV v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 41817/10

  CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE NKR v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 31165/16

  DUGGAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR - 38277/22 (anhängig)

  KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 46398/20 (anhängig)

  SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 12105/13

  STEPANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2023 - 74508/16

  OHANYAN v. AZERBAIJAN