Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MARINA ALEKSEYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  In that connection the Court has held that, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 90, 94 and 95, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  Where lives have been lost in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, Article 2 entails a duty on the State to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response - judicial or otherwise - so that the legislative and administrative framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are suppressed and punished (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 91, ECHR 2004-XII, and, mutatis mutandis, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 148, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov, cited above, § 88).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for example, Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 114, 4 May 2001; McCann and Others, cited above, § 161; Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 148, ECHR 2001-III; and Trubnikov, cited above, § 88).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  Therefore the applicable principles which the Court has already had occasion to develop, notably in relation to the use of lethal force, lend themselves to application in other categories of cases (see Trubnikov v. Russia, no. 49790/99, § 87, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to account for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009, and Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 98, 17 January 2013).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to account for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009, and Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 98, 17 January 2013).
• EGMR, 26.02.2008 - 43443/98

  MANSUROGLU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 22490/05

  The Court further reiterates in this connection that, in all cases where it is unable to establish the exact circumstances of a case for reasons objectively attributable to the State authorities, it is for the respondent Government to explain, in a satisfactory and convincing manner, the sequence of events and to exhibit solid evidence that can refute the applicant's allegations (see MansuroÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 43443/98, § 80, 26 February 2008, with further references).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  [ENG]

  Therefore, the State is also under an obligation to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for any injuries or deaths occurring in the army (see Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; Baklanov v. Ukraine, no. 44425/08, § 67, 24 October 2013; Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 121, 19 December 2013; and Metin Gültekin and Others v. Turkey, no. 17081/06, § 33, 6 October 2015).
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 14791/04

  [ENG]

  As the applicant was granted victim status on 14 September 2002, that is, about a month since the start of the investigation, and subsequently she had access to the case materials, the Court considers that the authorities complied with the requirement of public scrutiny (see Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 130, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  [ENG]

  It would thus appear that the applicants, with a significant delay of about nine months, were granted victim status and had access to the case-file material, but only the material that concerned Pte R. and only at a late stage of the court proceedings against the latter, when the investigative stage had been completed (compare Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 130, 19 December 2013).

• EGMR, 30.06.2020 - 11967/12

  MECIT c. TURQUIE

  Il appartient dès lors au Gouvernement de rendre des comptes sur les blessures ou décès survenus dans l'armée (Beker c. Turquie, no 27866/03, §§ 42-43, 24 mars 2009, Mosendz c. Ukraine, no 52013/08, § 92, 17 janvier 2013, Baklanov c. Ukraine, no 44425/08, § 67, 24 octobre 2013, Marina Alekseyeva c. Russie, no 22490/05, § 121, 19 décembre 2013, et Metin Gültekin et autres c. Turquie, no 17081/06, § 33, 6 octobre 2015).
• EGMR, 28.01.2020 - 25835/10

  PAVLOVA v. RUSSIA

  The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for instance, Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 126, with further references, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 07.01.2020 - 64774/09

  NASIBULLIN v. RUSSIA

  The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for instance, Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 126, with further references, 19 December 2013).
• EGMR, 01.06.2021 - 51185/11

  NEVOSTRUYEVA v. RUSSIA

  The requirement of public scrutiny is also relevant in this context (see, for instance, Marina Alekseyeva v. Russia, no. 22490/05, § 126, with further references, 19 December 2013).