Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARDANYAN AND KHALAFYAN v. ARMENIA

  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  VARDANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Zitiert selbst (17)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 93 and 97 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 10.05.2007 - 37410/97

  KAMIL UZUN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties and its findings under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 93 and 97 above), the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and merits of these complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Kamil Uzun v. Turkey, no. 37410/97, § 64, 10 May 2007, and Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  The Court notes that there was no change of course even after the investigation was taken over by an independent authority, namely the SIS (see paragraph 16 above), which continued to conduct the investigation on the same premise, never seriously questioning the account of events provided by the police officers or making attempts to verify any other possible scenarios (compare Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, § 153, 2 October 2012, and Gulyan, cited above, § 86), despite growing signs that they were not trustworthy and reliable witnesses.

• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 33750/03

  YETER v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  However, the Court has already held that amnesties and pardons should not be tolerated in cases concerning torture or ill-treatment inflicted by State agents (see Yeter v. Turkey, no. 33750/03, § 70, 13 January 2009, and Mocanu and Others, cited above, § 326).
• EGMR, 22.12.2009 - 27996/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  On the other hand, while the Government did not explicitly contest the third applicant's victim status based on his relationship with the deceased, this aspect of compatibility ratione personae calls for consideration ex officio by the Court (see, for example, Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, § 27, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, §§ 99 and 100, ECHR 2000-VII, and Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, § 83, ECHR 2015).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  While it is true that the Court has accepted applications introduced by cousins raising complaints concerning the deaths of their next of kin (see, for example, Khaylo v. Ukraine, no. 39964/02, § 98, 13 November 2008; Van Melle v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 19221/08, 29 September 2009; Arapkhanovy v. Russia, no. 2215/05, §§ 7 and 107, 3 October 2013; and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 12 and 186-89, 30 March 2016), it has also held that a fourth-degree tie of kinship is not in itself sufficient for an applicant to be recognised as a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention (see Belkıza Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33420/96 and 36206/97, § 46, 22 November 2005, and Fabris and Parziale, cited above, § 38).
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  National rules in this respect may serve purposes different from those contemplated by Article 34 of the Convention and, whilst those purposes may sometimes be analogous, they need not always be so (see Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 139, ECHR 2000-VIII).
• EGMR, 14.01.2021 - 50231/13

  SABALIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  Lastly, when the official investigation has led to the institution of proceedings in the national courts, the proceedings as a whole, including the trial stage, must satisfy the requirements of the positive obligation under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 95, ECHR 2004-XII, and Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 97, 14 January 2021).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12

  KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2265/12

  In cases like the present one where the alleged ill-treatment is closely linked to the victim's death, close family members can also legitimately claim to be victims of a violation of both substantive and procedural limbs of Article 3 of the Convention (see Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, § 105, 11 February 2016, with further citations).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 67258/13

  MYUMYUN c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 19.03.2020 - 41603/13

  FABRIS ET PARZIALE c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2215/05

  ARAPKHANOVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 11244/12

  GULYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 33420/96

  KAYA ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 29.09.2009 - 19221/08

  VAN MELLE AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.10.2026 - 32761/17

  STADNYK v. UKRAINE

  It further notes that those complaints are to be examined together, in the light of the converging principles deriving from Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and taking into account the fact that the complaints arise from the same set of facts (see, for a similar approach, Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, § 78, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 40410/07

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA

  Therefore, the Court considers that, in order to establish whether the State authorities have adequately discharged their obligation to account for D.K.'s death and injuries under Article 2 of the Convention, it must first have regard to the procedural limb of the applicant's complaint, namely the effectiveness of the investigation carried out by the authorities and the conclusions reached by them (compare Beker, cited above, § 43; Sergey Shevchenko, cited above, §§ 54-57; Pankov v. Bulgaria, no. 12773/03, § 58, 7 October 2010; and Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, 8 November 2022), and then turn to the substantive limb and the question of whether the State can be held responsible for the death (see, mutatis mutandis, Ohanjanyan v. Armenia, no. 70665/11, § 139, 25 April 2023).
• EGMR, 09.01.2025 - 51448/15

  PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that the subject matter of the present application concerns, firstly, the respondent State's obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to account for the loss of life within the context of deprivation of liberty (see, in particular, Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, § 96, 8 November 2022; see also, within the context of deaths during military service, Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 133, 24 November 2016, and Ohanjanyan v. Armenia, no. 70665/11, §§ 158-60, 25 April 2023).

• EGMR, 15.01.2026 - 32707/19

  MAGHERINI AND OTHERS v. ITALY

  Rn. 70 Although the Government did not lodge an objection concerning the applicants' victim status based on their relationships with the deceased, this aspect of compatibility ratione personae calls for consideration by the Court of its own motion (see Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, § 69, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 20.02.2024 - 6406/21

  M.G. v. LITHUANIA

  The Court's task therefore consists in reviewing whether and to what extent the courts, in reaching their conclusion, may be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 3 of the Convention, so that the deterrent effect of the judicial system in place and the significance of the role it is required to play in preventing violations of the prohibition of ill-treatment are not undermined (see Myumyun v. Bulgaria, no. 67258/13, §§ 66-67, 3 November 2015; Sabalić v. Croatia, no. 50231/13, § 97, 14 January 2021; and Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, § 83, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 20.06.2023 - 2186/12

  YENGIBARYAN AND SIMONYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court finds, in view of the considerations outlined above (see paragraphs 123-132), that the investigation conducted at the national level was so manifestly inadequate and left so many obvious questions unanswered that it is not capable of establishing the true facts surrounding the killing and the Court is unable to rely on the conclusion reached at the end of that investigation (see Cangöz and Others, cited above, § 138, and Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, § 96, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 12.02.2026 - 55046/16

  PETKANYCH AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 10 As concerns the fifth applicant, Mr Yaroslav Fedorovych Petkanych, who is a brother of the husband of late P., the Court finds that the link between P. and the fifth applicant at the time of her death was not sufficient for the latter to be considered a victim of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention (see Belkıza Kaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33420/96 and 36206/97, §§ 45-48, 22 November 2005; Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, §§ 68-72, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 13.02.2025 - 71056/14

  INDYLO v. UKRAINE

  Rn. 30 The Court further considers that the complaints are to be examined together, in the light of the converging principles deriving from both those provisions and taking into account that the complaints arise from the same set of facts (see, for a similar approach, Vardanyan and Khalafyan v. Armenia, no. 2265/12, § 78, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 22776/18

  ALMUKHLAS ET AL-MALIKI c. GRÈCE

  Rn. 6 Dans un certain nombre d'affaires où la Cour a décelé des défaillances graves dans l'enquête interne, les constats procéduraux en question ont eu une incidence directe sur le constat d'une violation du droit à la vie à raison du recours à la force (voir, outre les arrêts mentionnés au paragraphe 5 ci-dessus, les arrêts Bagirova c. Azerbaïdjan, no 9375/20, §§ 66-69, 10 octobre 2024, 0hanjanyan c. Arménie, no 70665/11, § 160, 25 avril 2023, Vardanyan et Khalafyan c. Arménie, no 2265/12, §§ 96-97, 8 novembre 2022, Bişar Ayhan et autres c. Turquie, nos 42329/11 et 47319/11, 18 mai 2021, Karataş et autres c. Turquie, no 46820/09, §§ 89-90, 12 septembre 2017, et Gülbahar Özer et autres c. Turquie, no 44125/06, §§ 74-76, 2 juillet 2013).