|EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03|
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 13+8, Art. 13+P1 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art.... 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 13+2 Violation of Art. 13+8 Violation of Art. 13+P1-1 Violation of Art. 8 and P1-1 No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (28)
- EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07
Massaker von KatynOn the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).
Nevertheless, the Court has considered a separate finding of a violation of Article 3 to be justified in situations of confirmed death where the applicants were direct witnesses to the suffering of their family members (see Salakhov and Islyamova v. Ukraine, no. 28005/08, § 204, 14 March 2013, where the applicant witnessed the slow death of her son who was in detention, without being able to help him; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 190, 29 March 2011, where a violation of Article 3 was found in respect of an applicant who had witnessed the killing of his entire family, but no violation was found in respect of other applicants who had only later found out about the killings; Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008, where the applicants were unable to bury the dismembered and decapitated bodies of their children in a proper manner; Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos.
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
ASLAKHANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAIt considers, therefore, that such an appeal in the particular circumstances of the present cases would be devoid of any purpose and could not be considered effective (see Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 128, 29 March 2011).
- EGMR, 06.06.2013 - 38450/05
SABANCHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIAEn l'espèce, le décès des proches des requérants n'est pas le résultat d'actions des autorités contraires à l'article 2 de la Convention (voir les circonstances ayant abouti au décès des proches des requérants, paragraphes 6 et 7 ci-dessus, et comparer, par exemple, avec Esmukhambetov et autres c. Russie, no 23445/03, §§ 138-151 et 190, 29 mars 2011).
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.