Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 10.08.2006 - 55389/00

  DOBREV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  In these particular circumstances the Court can neither hold against the applicant that he did not avail himself of such remedies, nor is it called upon to assess their potential effectiveness in abstracto (see Dodov v. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, § 86, ECHR 2008-, and Dobrev v. Bulgaria, no. 55389/00, §§ 112-114, 10 August 2006).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 38501/02

  AL FAYED c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  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, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  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, 15.12.2009 - 4314/02

  KALENDER c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2 of the Convention requires the States, in particular, to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life in context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see, among other authorities, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-XII; Kalender v. Turkey, no. 4314/02, § 51, 15 December 2009; and Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 44, 9 November 2010).
• EGMR, 05.01.2010 - 23401/04

  RAILEAN v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  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, 09.11.2010 - 25732/05

  KRIVOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  The Court reiterates that the first sentence of Article 2 of the Convention requires the States, in particular, to put in place a legislative and administrative framework designed to provide effective deterrence against threats to the right to life in context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see, among other authorities, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 89-90, ECHR 2004-XII; Kalender v. Turkey, no. 4314/02, § 51, 15 December 2009; and Krivova v. Ukraine, no. 25732/05, § 44, 9 November 2010).

• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17860/17

  GOLOBORODKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  repeated remittals of the case for additional investigation owing to the insufficiency of the measures taken by the investigators (Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 50, 3 November 2011);.

  progressive deterioration/loss of evidence (Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 50, 3 November 2011).

• EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 35431/21

  LEZNYUK v. UKRAINE

  progressive deterioration/loss of evidence (Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 50, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 68748/17

  YEFIMOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  repeated remittals of the case for an additional investigation owing to the insufficiency of the measures taken by the investigators (Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 50, 3 November 2011),.

 
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 47384/11

  SIDIKA IMREN v. TURKEY

  Accordingly, the Court has found on many occasions that the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the part of the authorities in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome, may lead to the finding of a procedural violation under Article 2 (see, for example, Silih, cited above, § 211; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011; and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 52, 31 July 2012).
• EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11

  VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE

  The Court will therefore confine itself to examining whether the criminal investigation into the death of the applicant's daughter satisfied the criteria of effectiveness required by Article 2 of the Convention (see Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 47-49, 3 November 2011, and Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 38, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  FERGEC v. CROATIA

  This includes an obligation to have in place an effective independent judicial system securing the availability of legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (see Saso Gorgiev, cited above, § 43, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 229-239, ECHR 2016; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011, and Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 44, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 14.05.2013 - 58347/08

  YERMAKOVA v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that it has examined a number of applications against Ukraine concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention (see Sergey Shevchenko (cited above); Lyubov Efimenko v. Ukraine, no. 75726/01, 25 November 2010; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, 3 November 2011; Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, 3 March 2011; Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, 12 January 2012; and Kachurka v. Ukraine, no. 4737/06, 15 September 2011).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 49626/07

  TIKHOMIROVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a eu l'occasion d'examiner à maintes reprises, sur le terrain de l'article 2 de la Convention, des situations où une perte de vies humaines a résulté d'un accident de la circulation (voir, parmi d'autres, Kotelnikov c. Russie, no 45104/05, § 101, 12 juillet 2016, Basyuk c. Ukraine, no 51151/10, § 56, 5 novembre 2015, Ciobanu c. République de Moldova, no 62578/09, § 32, 24 février 2015, Starcevic c. Croatie, no 80909/12, § 56, 13 novembre 2014, Zubkova c. Ukraine, no 36660/08, § 35, 17 octobre 2013, Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012, Sergiyenko c. Ukraine, no 47690/07, § 48, 19 avril 2012, Igor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, Antonov c. Ukraine, no 28096/04, § 44, 3 novembre 2011, et Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 76, 24 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 22323/08

  LOVYGINY v. UKRAINE

  Where a life-threatening injury or a death occurs, Article 2 further requires that an effective judicial system be set up to ensure the enforcement of the aforementioned legislative framework by providing appropriate redress (see, for instance, Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011, and Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 44, 3 November 2011).