Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAILEAN v. MOLDOVA

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (21)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death, or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V, and Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 19.03.2002 - 27243/95

  SABUKTEKIN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, § 98, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Kavak v. Turkey, no. 53489/99, § 45, 6 July 2006; and Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38501/02

  AL FAYED c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, § 98, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Kavak v. Turkey, no. 53489/99, § 45, 6 July 2006; and Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 06.07.2006 - 53489/99

  KAVAK c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see Sabuktekin v. Turkey, no. 27243/95, § 98, ECHR 2002-II (extracts); Kavak v. Turkey, no. 53489/99, § 45, 6 July 2006; and Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, 27 September 2007).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death, or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard (see Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V, and Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007).

• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 3648/04

  CAVIT TINARLIOGLU c. TURQUIE

  On trouve aussi des exemples relatifs à des incidents où une conduite a priori imprudente d'une personne a pu mettre sa propre vie en danger, en l'absence de mesures adéquates, dans des domaines tels que les secours d'urgence en montagne (Furdik, décision précitée), la protection des individus lors des activités récréatives ou sportives organisées (Prilutskiy c. Ukraine, no 40429/08, § 35, 26 février 2015, et Vrábel, décision précitée) ou individuelles (Gökdemir, décision précitée, § 3), la protection des élèves dans le cadre des transports scolaires (Ilbeyi Kemaloglu et Meriye Kemaloglu c. Turquie, no 19986/06, 10 avril 2012), la sécurité routière (Rajkowska c. Pologne (déc.), no 37393/02, 27 novembre 2007, Zavoloka c. Lettonie, no 58447/00, §§ 36 et 39, 7 juillet 2009, Railean c. Moldavie, no 23401/04, § 28, 5 janvier 2010, et Anna Todorova, précité, §§ 73-74), la sécurité des transports ferroviaires (Bône, décision précitée, et Kalender c. Turquie, no 4314/02, 15 décembre 2009), la sûreté des bâtiments techniques (Iliya Petrov, précité), des containers de déchets (Demir, décision précitée, §§ 61 et 62) ou des fontaines illuminées (Güvenç et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 43036/08, §§ 3 et 4, 21 mai 2013) situés dans des zones publiques, la sécurité dans les terrains de jeu (Koceski c. L'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine (déc.), no 41107/07, § 25, 22 octobre 2013) ou de sport (Molie, décision précitée, § 4), la sécurité des réseaux de distribution de l'électricité (Fedina c. Ukraine, no 17185/02, § 54, 2 septembre 2010), ou encore le traitement des munitions non explosées lors des exercices militaires (Oruk c. Turquie, no 33647/04, § 59, 4 février 2014).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36660/08

  ZUBKOVA v. UKRAINE

  This obligation also applies in the context of designing a framework for protection of life from road traffic accidents (see, for example, Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007; Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07

  KUDRA v. CROATIA

  The Court reiterates that in some situations, compliance with the positive obligation to secure life under Article 2 of the Convention entails putting in place effective criminal-law provisions (see, for example, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 93, ECHR 2004-XII, and Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, §§ 27-28, 5 January 2010).

 
• EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 28732/09

  SANSAL c. TURQUIE

  De plus, la Cour rappelle que la responsabilité de l'État au titre de l'article 2 de la Convention trouve également à s'appliquer dans les cas des accidents de la route ou de la sécurité routière lorsque l'atteinte au droit à la vie ou à l'intégrité physique n'était pas volontaire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Irena Rajkowska c. Pologne (déc.), no 37393/02, 27 novembre 2007, Railean c. Moldova, no 23401/04, § 30, 5 janvier 2010, Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 72, 24 mai 2011, Igor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, et Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012).
• EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04

  IGOR SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  In particular, such obligation indisputably applies in the context of designing a legislative framework for road traffic safety (see, for example, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; and Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 72).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  This obligation indisputably applies in the context of designing a framework for protection of life from road traffic accidents (see, for example, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court recalls that the State's positive obligation to protect the right to life has also been found to arise in the context of deaths resulting from traffic accidents (see, for instance, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 30, 5 January 2010; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 50, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11

  VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE

  Examining the circumstances of the present case in light of the principles established in its case-law (see, in particular, Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, §§ 27-29, 5 January 2010, and Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 56, 12 January 2012), the Court notes that the investigation into the death of the applicant's daughter has lasted more than nine years.
• EGMR, 27.01.2011 - 44862/04

  DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  That obligation requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have died in violent or suspicious circumstances, even if there is no indication that the death is due to State action (see, concerning inter-prisoner violence, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II; concerning homicides by prisoners benefiting from early release or social re-integration schemes, Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, §§ 89, 92 and 93, ECHR 2002-VIII, and Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, §§ 123-26, 15 December 2009; concerning racist attacks, Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V, and Angelova and Iliev, cited above, §§ 91-105; concerning high-profile assassinations, Kolevi v. Bulgaria, no. 1108/02, §§ 191-215, 5 November 2009; concerning domestic violence, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, §§ 150 and 151, ECHR 2009-...; concerning motor-car accidents, Al Fayed v. France (dec.), no. 38501/02, §§ 73-78, 27 September 2007; Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007; and Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 28, 5 January 2010; concerning deadly accidents on construction sites, Pereira Henriques v. Luxembourg, no. 60255/00, §§ 12 and 54-63, 9 May 2006; and, concerning suspicious deaths, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 234, 7 January 2010, and Iorga v. Moldova, no. 12219/05, § 26, 23 March 2010).
• EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 20295/07

  ZORINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  The mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances in which it occurred (see, for example, Railean v. Moldova, no. 23401/04, § 28, 5 January 2010; Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, §§ 56-57, 5 November 2015; and Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, cited above, § 56).
• EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 36783/09

  ARIK c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  KOTELNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 24.05.2016 - 67385/09

  KAYA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 51151/10

  BASYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 15022/08

  HACIÖMEROGLU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 23302/03

  ANNA TODOROVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 11.01.2011 - 34137/03

  GEORGI GEORGIEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 66309/09

  GÖKDEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 19406/05

  ZASHEVI v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 47021/10

  ÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 58200/10

  DEMIR c. TURQUIE