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 ... (4) Zitiert selbst (7)
- 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. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.
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. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.
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, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
MUKHTAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 59117/11
Application no. (13916/12 Mukhtarova and Others v. Russia)}}.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.
13916/12.
- 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, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 59117/11
- the Court's numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both the disappearances of the applicants' relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. - VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
Auszug aus EGMR - 59117/11
13/12/2012. - EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 61536/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 59117/11
61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014); and;.
- 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.
- EGMR - 49112/15 (anhängig)
ALIYEVY v. RUSSIA
According to the applicants, at least ten other Grozny residents were abducted at the same time and place under similar circumstances (see also Ozdamirova and Bakriyeva v. Russia no. 59117/11; Ismailovy v. Russia no. 2664/12; Magomadova v. Russia 67274/13; and Sambiyeva and Eskiyev v. Russia no. 49097/15). - 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. - EGMR - 49097/15 (anhängig)
SAMBIYEVA AND ESKIYEV v. RUSSIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MUKHTAROVA 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 - Inhuman treatment) ...
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (9)
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
The Court must establish first whether the costs and expenses were actually incurred and, second, 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, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012). - EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather in 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 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather in 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, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10
DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
Accordingly, the Court finds that the third, fourth and fifth applicants failed to demonstrate due diligence and to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for similar reasoning, Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, §§ 41-47, 31 May 2016). - EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369-74, 9 October 2014, and Dudayeva v. Russia, no. 67437/09, § 71, 8 December 2015. - EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09
Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
42575/07 and 11 others, §§ 369-74, 9 October 2014, and Dudayeva v. Russia, no. 67437/09, § 71, 8 December 2015. - EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 21135/09
IREZIYEVY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
The Court further confirms that since it has been established that Mr Sharpudi Mukhtarov was detained by State agents, apparently without any legal grounds or acknowledgment of such detention (see paragraph 60 above), this constitutes a particularly serious violation of the right to liberty and security enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention (see, for example, Imakayeva, cited above, § 178; Aslakhanova and Others, cited above, § 134; and Ireziyevy v. Russia, no. 21135/09, § 80, 2 April 2015). - EGMR, 09.02.2016 - 34576/08
KHACHUKAYEVY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 13916/12
The Court accordingly finds that the first and second applicants did not have an effective domestic remedy at their disposal for their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Khachukayevy v. Russia, no. 34576/08, § 77, 9 February 2016).
- EGMR - 59117/11 (anhängig)
OZDAMIROVA AND BAKRIYEVA v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
Application no. (13916/12 Mukhtarova and Others v. Russia)}}.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.
13916/12.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".