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 ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  Inasmuch as their objection related to the fact that the investigation was still pending, having referred to Imakayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 7615/02, 12 February 2005, the applicant contended that this argument related to the merits of her complaint.

  The Court observes that it has already found on a number of occasions that the provisions of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not preclude disclosure of documents from a pending investigation file, but rather set out a procedure for and limits to such disclosure (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 104, 26 January 2006, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  She relied in this connection on the cases of Assanidze v. Georgia ([GC], no. 71503/01, §§ 202-203, ECHR 2004-II) and Tahsin Acar v. Turkey ((preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 84, ECHR 2003-VI).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  The Court further reiterates that the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State's obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 183, 24 February 2005).

 
• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  As to the facts that are in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII).
• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  It reiterates, however, that the first sentence of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention must be construed as laying down a positive obligation on the State to protect the liberty of its citizens (see Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, § 102, ECHR 2005-V).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  The Court reiterates that in previous cases concerning disappearances of people in Chechnya which have come before the Court (see, for example, Imakayeva, cited above, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-... ), it found that, in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person was detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgement of the detention, this could be regarded as life-threatening.
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", also requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, mutatis mutandis, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, p. 49, § 161, and Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, p. 324, § 86).
• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  Failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands, without a satisfactory explanation, may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, § 66, ECHR 2000-VI).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  In the Court's view, the failure to take those measures constitutes a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 26.01.2006 - 77617/01

  MIKHEYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2009 - 25385/04

  The Court observes that it has already found on a number of occasions that the provisions of Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not preclude disclosure of documents from a pending investigation file, but rather set out a procedure for and limits to such disclosure (see Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 104, 26 January 2006, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-... (extracts)).

• EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 39630/09

  El Masri klagt gegen Mazedonien

  Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime qu'il aurait dû être clair pour les autorités macédoniennes que, une fois remis aux autorités américaines, le requérant courrait un risque réel de subir une violation flagrante de ses droits au titre de l'article 5. A cet égard, la Cour rappelle que cette disposition exige de l'Etat non seulement qu'il s'abstienne de porter activement atteinte aux droits en question, mais aussi qu'il prenne des mesures appropriées pour protéger l'ensemble des personnes relevant de sa juridiction contre toute atteinte illégale à ces droits (Storck c. Allemagne, no 61603/00, §§ 100-101, CEDH 2005-V, et Medova c. Russie, no 25385/04, § 123, 15 janvier 2009).
• 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, 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, 03.07.2014 - 18114/06

  AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Thus, it has been found that for the Court to find a violation of this aspect, 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 v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 222, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 39358/05, § 136, 15 March 2011).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  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, 15.03.2011 - 39358/05

  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. 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, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06

  MUTSOLGOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  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 OsmanoÄ?lu v. Turkey, no. 48804/99, § 57, 24 January 2008).
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 37287/09

  MAKAYEVA 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, 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, 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, 15.10.2015 - 16664/07

  ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA

  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, 19.12.2013 - 18407/10

  DOBRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 18011/12

  IBRAGIM TSECHOYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2010 - 53586/09

  WATTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM