Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEDOVA c. RUSSIE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Exception préliminaire rejetée Violation de l'art. 38-1-a Violations de l'art. 2 (volet procédural) Non-violation de l'art. 3 (volet matériel) Violation de l'art. 5 Violation de l'art. 13+2 Non-violation de l'art. 13+3 Non-violation de l'art. 34 Préjudice ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MEDOVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 13+2, Art. 13+3, Art. 34, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 46, Art. 46 Abs. 2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed Violation of Art. 38-1-a Violations of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 13+2 No violation of Art. 13+3 No violation of Art. 34 Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 25385/04
• EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  Elle rappelle cependant que la première phrase de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention doit être comprise comme imposant à l'Etat l'obligation positive de protéger la liberté de ses ressortissants (Storck c. Allemagne, no 61603/00, § 102, CEDH 2005-V).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  Elle rappelle que dans de précédentes affaires relatives à des disparitions de personnes en Tchétchénie (voir par exemple les affaires Imakaïeva, précitée, et Loulouïev et autres c. Russie, no 69480/01, CEDH 2006-(...)), elle a jugé que, dans le contexte du conflit en République tchétchène, lorsqu'une personne était détenue par des militaires non identifiés sans que sa détention ne soit reconnue ultérieurement, on pouvait considérer que cette situation mettait sa vie en danger.
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  En ce qui concerne les faits contestés, elle rappelle sa jurisprudence selon laquelle le critère devant être retenu est celui de la preuve « au-delà de tout doute raisonnable'(Avsar c. Turquie, no 25657/94, § 282, CEDH 2001-VII).
• KAG Aachen, 08.08.2006 - 15/06

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  Le 26 juin 2004, 1e procureur adjoint du district de Sounjen confirma à nouveau à la famille que « le 15/06/2004, M. Medov [avait] été détenu par des agents du département tchétchène du FSB sous le commandement du lieutenant-colonel Beletskiy V.V. [et que, le] 18 juin 2004, [M.,] le procureur militaire des Forces combinées, [avait] été prié de communiquer des informations relatives aux motifs de l'arrestation.
• VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 27.05.2005 - 15/05

  Nachprüfungsverfahren: Antragsbefugnis trotz fehlender Angebotsabgabe

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  Cependant, le 21 juin 2004, 1e procureur adjoint du district de Sounjen informa la famille Medov que « le 15/05/2004, Medov A.K. [avait] été détenu par des agents du département tchétchène du FSB sous le commandement du lieutenant-colonel Beletskiy V.V. "[1].

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  [ENG]

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 26562/07

  TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 39358/05

  [ENG]

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); and Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 12.05.2016 - 62235/09

  GAYSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual's life from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 55; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 19.12.2013 - 18407/10

  [ENG]

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 6477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev, § 222; and Tsechoyev, § 136, both cited above).
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Russland wegen brutaler Folter verurteilt

  As regards the applicant's reference to Article 5 of the Convention, the Court notes that according to its established case-law the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13, absorb its requirements (see, among other authorities, Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 133, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  [ENG]

  Furthermore, the Court held that a finding of State involvement in the disappearance of a person is not a condition sine qua non for the purposes of establishing whether that person can be presumed dead; in certain circumstances the disappearance of a person may in itself be considered as life-threatening (see Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 90, ECHR 2009-... (extracts), and OsmanoÄŸlu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 57, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  [ENG]

  As regards individual measures, the Court observes that it has so far refused to give any specific indications to a Government that they should, in response to a finding of a procedural breach of Article 2, hold a new investigation (see Ülkü Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, § 179, 16 July 2002; Finucane v. the United Kingdom, no. 29178/95, § 89, ECHR 2003-VIII; Varnava and Others, cited above, § 222; Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 133-34, 15 November 2007; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, §§ 142-43, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 18011/12

  TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 6477/99, § 55, ECHR 2002-II; and Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009).
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  [ENG]

  For the Court to find a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, it must be established that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; Paul and Audrey Edwards, cited above, § 55; Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, § 96, 15 January 2009; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010-... (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  WATTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM