Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11, 41890/11, 52056/11, 13920/12, 40161/12, 72821/12, 3083/13, 6983/13 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DZHAMAKHADZHIYEV 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 ...
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR - 13920/12 (anhängig)
BATALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12).The applicants in Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) additionally submitted that they had found themselves in especially difficult circumstances after the abduction of Mr Musa Tashayev, because three sons of the first and the second applicants had either disappeared or had been killed within the two years that followed.
Turning to the applications Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12), the Court notes that they were lodged eleven years after the abduction of the applicants' relatives.
The Court further notes that the applicants in Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) informed the authorities about the abduction without there being any undue delay.
In the Court's view, it cannot be concluded therefore that the applicants in Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) failed to show the requisite diligence by unreasonably waiting for the pending investigation to yield results (contrast Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, §§ 34-40, 26 August 2014).
Turning to the application Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), the Court observes that the alleged abductors spoke unaccented Russian and arrived in a heavy military vehicle, the APC.
In the cases of Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) and Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13), the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants' complaints of abduction, which they said had to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court accordingly finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
The Government argued that in applications Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12), Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13) and Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13) the compensation sought by the applicants was excessive.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) or Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
13920/12.
- EGMR - 52056/11 (anhängig)
TAGIROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11).The Government further challenged the claim in the application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11) that the first applicant had complained about the abduction of her relatives in 2002.
As to the application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11), lodged with the Court nine years after the abduction, the Court notes that the applicants and their relatives made consistent allegations in the domestic proceedings that the first applicant had complained to the authorities about the abduction of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov for the first time in June 2002 (see paragraphs 61, 65 and 66 above).
The Court further notes that in application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11) it was established that Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov had been arrested by law-enforcement agents from the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 69 above).
The applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court accordingly finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) or Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
52056/11.
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
As to the costs and expenses, the Court must establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' representatives 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).
- VerfG Brandenburg, 25.08.2010 - VfGBbg 11/10
Ablehnung des Antrags auf Erlass einer eA die darauf gerichtet ist, Träger …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
12/10/1953. - EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
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, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
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 - 69480/01
LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Where the news about a missing person's death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period in which he or she has been deemed to have disappeared, there is a distinct period during which the applicants are left with sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress, these being characteristics of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
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, 28.06.2011 - 17/02
LIGERES v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
17/02/1961. - KAG Freiburg, 19.06.2009 - 11/09
Anspruch auf Freistellung und Kostenübernahme für eine beabsichtigte …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Disappeared on 11/09/2002. - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94
CICEK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10
DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 40166/07
Russland muss Tschetschenen Schmerzensgeld zahlen
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09
Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 31179/11
UTSMIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 20727/04
BANTAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 8620/09
[ENG]
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 - 13920/12, 24365/12, 27987/12, 32554/12, 39694/12, 66877/12, 71672/12, 72821/12, 79938/12, 79940/12, 1969/13, 1978/13, 3083/13, 3752/13, 12642/13 |
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (8)
- EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13
DZHABRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 13920/12
14. Application no. 3752/13 (Dzhabrailovy v. Russia).In respect of the applications Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Kudusov and Others v. Russia (no. 1978/13), Larsanova v. Russia (3083/13), Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (no. 3752/13) and Baysultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 12642/13) have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there "excessive or unexplained delays" on the applicants' part in submitting their complaints to the Court following the abduction of their relatives, or 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.
3752/13.
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 13920/12
15. Application no. 12642/13 (Baysultanova and Others v. Russia).In respect of the applications Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Kudusov and Others v. Russia (no. 1978/13), Larsanova v. Russia (3083/13), Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (no. 3752/13) and Baysultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 12642/13) have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there "excessive or unexplained delays" on the applicants' part in submitting their complaints to the Court following the abduction of their relatives, or 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.
12642/13.
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR - 13920/12
(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 - 13920/12
- the Court's numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both disappearances of the applicants' relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and failures 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. - EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 15/02
DURUK ET YÜCEDAG c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR - 13920/12
15/02/2013. - VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04
Auszug aus EGMR - 13920/12
18/04/2012. - EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 13920/12
For a detailed description of these events see Abuyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 27065/05, 2 December 2010) and Isayeva v. Russia (no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005). - EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 61536/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 13920/12
61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014), and;.
- EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
DZHAMAKHADZHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12).The applicants in Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) additionally submitted that they had found themselves in especially difficult circumstances after the abduction of Mr Musa Tashayev, because three sons of the first and the second applicants had either disappeared or had been killed within the two years that followed.
Turning to the applications Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12), the Court notes that they were lodged eleven years after the abduction of the applicants' relatives.
The Court further notes that the applicants in Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) informed the authorities about the abduction without there being any undue delay.
In the Court's view, it cannot be concluded therefore that the applicants in Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) failed to show the requisite diligence by unreasonably waiting for the pending investigation to yield results (contrast Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, §§ 34-40, 26 August 2014).
Turning to the application Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), the Court observes that the alleged abductors spoke unaccented Russian and arrived in a heavy military vehicle, the APC.
In the cases of Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) and Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13), the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants' complaints of abduction, which they said had to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court accordingly finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
The Government argued that in applications Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12), Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13) and Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13) the compensation sought by the applicants was excessive.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) or Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
13920/12.
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".