Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2011,55747
EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,55747)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29.03.2011 - 23445/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,55747)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 29. März 2011 - 23445/03 (https://dejure.org/2011,55747)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,55747) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • 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)

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (28)

  • EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

    Massaker von Katyn

    On 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. RUSSIA

    It 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. RUSSIA

    En 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).
  • EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 23502/06

    Bomben auf kurdische Dörfer: Türkei muss Schmerzensgeld zahlen

    Furthermore, witnessing the killing of their close relatives or the immediate aftermath, coupled with the authorities" wholly inadequate and inefficient response in the aftermath of the events, must have caused the applicants suffering attaining the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see Musayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 57941/00, 58699/00 and 60403/00, § 169, 26 July 2007; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 190, 29 March 2011).
  • EGMR, 18.07.2013 - 50757/06

    TAZIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    These are issues to be examined rather under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see also Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 188, 29 March 2011, where even total destruction of homes and property had not been found to be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention).

    Reference to this Act cannot replace specific authorisation of an interference with an individual's rights under Article 8 of the Convention, delimiting the object and scope of that interference and drawn up in accordance with the relevant legal provisions (see, for example, Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 176, 29 March 2011; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, §§ 188-189, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).

  • EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 17423/05

    KOLYADENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by acts or omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see, among recent authorities, Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 158, 29 March 2011).
  • EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

    STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA

    57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005; Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, 12 October 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, 18 January 2007; Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, 4 October 2007; Sadykov v. Russia, no. 41840/02, 7 October 2010; Khatsiyeva and Others, cited above; Akhmadov and Others, cited above; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, 29 March 2011).
  • EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

    MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

    The State authorities are also under an obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, among other authorities, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 140, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 107, 29 March 2011; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 22089/07

    ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The death of the applicants" relatives in the present case did not result from any actions by the authorities in contravention of Article 2 of the Convention (compare to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, §§ 138-151 and 190, 29 March 2011) and the applicants cannot be said to have been suffering from any prolonged uncertainty regarding the fate of their relatives (compare to Luluyev and Others, cited above, §§ 116-118).
  • EGMR, 24.04.2012 - 41794/04

    CHUMAKOV v. RUSSIA

    The Court finds that the applicant was not obliged to pursue that remedy and holds that the Government's objection should therefore be dismissed (see Khatsiyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 5108/02, § 151, 17 January 2008, or Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 128, 29 March 2011).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 18407/10

    DOBRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 04.07.2013 - 7461/08

    BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.11.2012 - 30086/05

    DIMOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  • EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 31682/07

    KHAMZATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 7988/09

    ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 71593/11

    B. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 22.01.2015 - 15191/12

    KITANOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  • EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13

    NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

    AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 35389/04

    NITSOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 17.05.2016 - 8049/07

    NEKRASOV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 40166/07

    Russland muss Tschetschenen Schmerzensgeld zahlen

  • EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 66953/09

    MILEUSNIC ET MILEUSNIC-ESPENHEIM c. CROATIE

  • EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 44817/04

    KILYEN v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 22782/06

    ABDULKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 06.10.2015 - 12311/06

    BORIS IVANOV c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 14.03.2013 - 47215/07

    AVKHADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 5063/05

    SALAMOV v. RUSSIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht