Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAIDOVA 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 (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SAIDOVA v. RUSSIA and 7 other applications

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (36)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR - 11499/14 (anhängig)

  DZHALILOV v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  Dzhalilov v. Russia (11499/14).

  In Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government pointed out that the criminal case had been opened more than six years after the alleged abduction.

  The applicant in Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) stated that he had complained to the authorities shortly after the incident and had hoped that a criminal investigation would be initiated and produce results.

  The Court also observes that in each of the applications, save for Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14), the authorities opened a criminal investigation into the applicants' complaints of abduction, which was repeatedly suspended and then resumed following criticism by the supervising investigators.

  In each case, but Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14), the investigation was still ongoing or pending when the application was lodged with the Court.

  In the light of the above the Court concludes that the applicants in each of the cases under examination save for Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) have complied with the six-month rule.

  Turning to Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14), the Court notes that the question whether the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit in respect of this complaint is closely linked to the question of whether the domestic authorities carried out an effective investigation into the applicant's allegations.

  In Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the applicant's wife disappeared after being arrested at a border checkpoint, detained and taken to the FSB headquarters in Khankala (see paragraphs 189 and 193 above).

  Moreover, in Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the investigators' superior annulled the decision to open a criminal case into the abduction and no fully-fledged criminal investigation was subsequently initiated despite the consistent orders of the superior to this end (see paragraphs 208, 210 and 213-217 above).

  In Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the applicant submitted that the authorities had not carried out a fully-fledged investigation by opening a criminal case and they had failed to take basic steps.

  In Saidova (no. 36963/09), Machigov (8417/10) and Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government left the issue to the Court's discretion.

  In Machigov (no. 8417/10) and Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government did not comment on the applicants' claims.

  Decides to join to the merits the Government's objection in Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) concerning compliance with the six-month time-limit and rejects it;.

  11499/14.

• EGMR - 8417/10 (anhängig)

  MACHIGOV v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  Machigov v. Russia (no. 8417/10).

  In Machigov (no. 8417/10) the investigation had been suspended in November 2005, whereas the applicant had challenged that decision only almost four years later, in February 2009, and had failed to contact the authorities in the meantime.

  In Machigov (no. 8417/10) the applicant argued that he had applied to the Court within nine years of his brother's abduction and eight years after the opening of the criminal case, which had been in compliance with the time-limits established by the Court's case-law.

  In Saidova (no. 36963/09) and Machigov (no. 8417/10) they did not exceed three years.

  The Court notes that in reply to its request for an entire copy of the investigation files into the abductions of the applicants' relatives the Government submitted relevant documents in all cases bar Machigov (no. 8417/10).

  In Machigov (no. 8417/10) the applicant's brother was arrested by the police and taken to the police station in Grozny (see paragraph 56 above).

  In particular, the applicants in Machigov (no. 8417/10) alleged that the investigation, initiated with a one-year delay, had been ineffective.

  At the outset the Court notes that in Machigov (no. 8417/10) the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files (see paragraph 247 above).

  In Saidova (no. 36963/09), Machigov (8417/10) and Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government left the issue to the Court's discretion.

  In Machigov (no. 8417/10) and Dzhalilov (no. 11499/14) the Government did not comment on the applicants' claims.

  8417/10.

• EGMR - 9862/12 (anhängig)

  PATSUYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 5 other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  Patsuyev and Others v. Russia (no. 9862/12).

  In Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12) there had been two significant lulls in the investigation - from June 2004 to December 2005 and from July 2006 to August 2010.

  The applicants in Patsuyev and Others (application no. 9862/12) argued that, unlike in Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia ((dec.) no. 58055/10, 31 May 2016), they had been in regular contact with the authorities.

  The most significant gaps occurred in Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12) - between 23 July 2006 and 27 August 2010 (see paragraphs 119 and 123 above) - and in Adisova and Others (no. 13793/13) - between 12 October 2006 and 29 March 2011 (see paragraphs 174 and 178 above).

  In Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12), the applicants' relatives disappeared as a result of a special operation carried out by an organised group of armed men at a district hospital (see paragraphs 71-74 above).

  In Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12) the applicants submitted that while the investigation had been opened on the day of their relatives' abduction, and the involvement of law-enforcement agents from Chechnya had been established, the investigators had failed to take steps to follow-up on that information.

  The applicants in Saidova (no. 36963/09) and Patsuyev and Others (no. 9862/12), asked the Court to indicate that there was an obligation on the respondent Government to identify and prosecute those responsible for the abduction of their relatives, and that an award in respect of non-pecuniary damage should be coupled with a decision by the Court that a fresh investigation should follow the entry into force of the Court's judgment.

  9862/12.

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  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, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  As to the Government's objection concerning the applicant's failure to comply with the six-month rule, the Court reiterates that where an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, the six-month period starts from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 24746/94

  HUGH JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  The Court stresses that a proper response by the authorities in investigating serious allegations of use of lethal force by agents of the State in compliance with the Article 2 of the Convention standards is essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, among other authorities, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 108, 4 May 2001, and Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 167, ECHR 2011).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  The Court has found on many occasions that in a situation of enforced disappearance, the close relatives of the victim may themselves be victims of treatment in violation of Article 3. The essence of such a violation does not mainly lie in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member but rather concerns the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  The Court has found on a number of occasions that unacknowledged detention is 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, 24.02.2005 - 57942/00

  KHASHIYEV AND AKAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  However, most importantly, in the civil proceedings referred to by the Government, the domestic courts were unable to conduct an investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the abductions and to provide adequate redress (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 121, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 36963/09

  The Court has already found that at the material time, a pre-investigation inquiry alone was not capable of leading to punishment of those responsible as regards allegations concerning such serious violations as ill-treatment by State agents (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 135, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
• KAG Mainz, 25.11.2010 - M 29/10

  Höhergruppierung
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 19/11

  LANG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HASTIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
• EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94

  CICEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10

  DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.04.2013 - 54765/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.02.2016 - 35152/09

  DALAKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  GAYSANOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 23.04.2015 - 30237/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 27441/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.08.2018 - 17054/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09

  Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 37193/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.10.2018 - 16397/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.04.2011 - 49076/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1572/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 25654/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 17879/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.06.2013 - 63638/09

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen