Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 2664/12, 2671/12, 1978/13, 30709/13, 67274/13, 70571/13 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ISMAILOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ...
- EGMR - 59117/11 (anhängig)
OZDAMIROVA AND BAKRIYEVA v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications
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.
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.
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 ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- 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.
12642/13.
- 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.
3752/13.
- 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?.