Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MERKULOVA v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  On numerous occasions the Court has found Article 6 to be applicable to civil-party claims in criminal proceedings and has examined relevant complaints on the merits (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2004-I; and mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, §§ 9 and 25, 8 November 2005, and Sergey Shevchenko, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 13.03.2007 - 23393/05

  CASTRAVET v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  The Court, which is master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see, as a recent authority, Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, § 23, 13 March 2007), finds that the complaint about ineffective investigation of Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death also falls to be examined under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows:.
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for the death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, §§ 66-67, 2 September 2010), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih, cited above, § 211, 9 April 2009; Sandru and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 77-80; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Agache and Others v. Romania, no. 2712/02, §§ 79-84, 20 October 2009; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, §§ 57-58, 24 March 2009).

• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for the death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, §§ 66-67, 2 September 2010), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih, cited above, § 211, 9 April 2009; Sandru and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 77-80; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Agache and Others v. Romania, no. 2712/02, §§ 79-84, 20 October 2009; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, §§ 57-58, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 04.04.2006 - 32478/02

  SERGEY SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  The relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure can be found in the judgment in the case of Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine (no. 32478/02, §§ 36-39, 4 April 2006).
• EGMR, 08.12.2009 - 22465/03

  SANDRU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  No pronouncement at national level has ever been made concerning the sufficiency of the measures taken in the course of the investigation into Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death for discharging the State's Convention duty under Article 2. The applicant thus cannot be said to have lost her victim status in respect of this complaint, irrespective of A.Y.'s conviction (see, mutatis mutandis, Sandru and Others v. Romania, no. 22465/03, §§ 62-64, 8 December 2009).
• EGMR, 10.12.2009 - 17985/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating the use of lethal force or a disappearance may generally be regarded as essential in ensuring public confidence in their maintenance of the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see, as a recent authority, Dudnyk v. Ukraine, no. 17985/04, § 33, 10 December 2009).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 11818/02

  MOJSIEJEW v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for the death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, §§ 66-67, 2 September 2010), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih, cited above, § 211, 9 April 2009; Sandru and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 77-80; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Agache and Others v. Romania, no. 2712/02, §§ 79-84, 20 October 2009; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, §§ 57-58, 24 March 2009).
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 22431/02

  BAGLAY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  On numerous occasions the Court has found Article 6 to be applicable to civil-party claims in criminal proceedings and has examined relevant complaints on the merits (see, for example, Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2004-I; and mutatis mutandis, Baglay v. Ukraine, no. 22431/02, §§ 9 and 25, 8 November 2005, and Sergey Shevchenko, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 17185/02

  FEDINA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for the death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, §§ 66-67, 2 September 2010), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih, cited above, § 211, 9 April 2009; Sandru and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 77-80; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Agache and Others v. Romania, no. 2712/02, §§ 79-84, 20 October 2009; and Mojsiejew v. Poland, no. 11818/02, §§ 57-58, 24 March 2009).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 31557/07

  PRYGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In should be noted that the mere fact that the suspect or defendant is in hiding does not remove the State's responsibility to ensure the effectiveness of the domestic proceedings, including appropriate search measures (see, for example, Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 58, 3 March 2011, Muravskaya v. Ukraine, no. 249/03, §§ 47-50, 13 November 2008).

  In the present case the Government have not provided sufficient justification for the duration of the proceedings, all the more so because the domestic authorities themselves admitted insufficiency of the measures taken when quashing the decisions refusing to institute or terminating the criminal proceedings (see, for example, Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, §§ 50-51 and 61, 3 March 2011; Kachurka v. Ukraine, no. 4737/06, § 50, 15 September 2011).

  In the present case the Government have not provided sufficient justification for the duration of the proceedings, all the more so since the investigation was characterised by repeated discontinuations and reopenings as a result of the insufficiency of the measures taken by the inquiring officers (see, for example, Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, §§ 50-51 and 61, 3 March 2011; Kachurka v. Ukraine, no. 4737/06, § 50, 15 September 2011).

• EGMR, 18.07.2019 - 50375/07

  VAZAGASHVILI AND SHANAVA v. GEORGIA

  While identification and punishment of those responsible for the death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, §§ 66-67, 2 September 2010), in already a significant number of cases brought before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 51, 3 March 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 22.01.2026 - 35052/19

  MAKARUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Lack of promptness and efficiency of the criminal proceedings (see Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, §§ 59-60, 3 March 2011, and Ranđelović and Others v. Montenegro, no. 66641/10, §§ 123-130, 19 September 2017).

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17860/17

  GOLOBORODKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Failure of the authorities to take all necessary actions for the establishment of a suspect's whereabouts in good time (Merkulova v. Ukraine,no. 21454/04, § 58, 3 March 2011).
• EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  AKELIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating suspicious deaths may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 50, 3 March 2011, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 237, ECHR 2016), and to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others, § 27, and Mustafayev, § 73, both cited above).
• EGMR, 15.09.2011 - 4737/06

  [ENG]

  The Court considers that a substantial delay in the identification of the cause of a death, unless it is justified by objective circumstances, can in and of itself undermine public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law and thereby raise an issue under the Convention (see e.g. Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, §§ 50-51 and 61, 3 March 2011).
• EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 22737/04

  IGOR SHEVCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  21454/04.
• EGMR, 02.04.2020 - 8938/07

  KUKHALASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  Furthermore, while identification and punishment of those responsible for the death in question and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, §§ 66-67, 2 September 2010), in a significant number of cases already brought before the Court, the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part as regards conducting the proceedings, regardless of the final outcome of those proceedings (see, for example, Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 51, 3 March 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 20.12.2011 - 5952/07

  [ENG]

  Other relevant principles determined by the Court in its case-law as regards the procedural aspect of Article 2 are summarised in the cases of Sergey Shevchenko (cited above, §§ 64-65); Mikhalkova and Others v. Ukraine (no. 10919/05, §§ 42-43, 13 January 2011); and Merkulova v. Ukraine (no. 21454/04, § 51, 3 March 2011).
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 72080/12

  SHAVADZE v. GEORGIA

  In a significant number of cases already brought before the Court, the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities' part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of the final outcome of those proceedings (see, for example, Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 51, 3 March 2011, with further references).
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 60790/12

  CHUMAK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 09.03.2023 - 75485/12

  BUDAYEVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 50067/13

  SVYSTORUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 42279/08

  MASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 29697/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 21.05.2015 - 527/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 35493/10

  BUCHYNSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 58347/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.06.2019 - 29309/16

  PRIZRENI v. ALBANIA
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 8347/12

  SHEPELENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 12.03.2015 - 61876/08

  [ENG]