Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOVHANNISYAN AND NAZARYAN v. ARMENIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA and 1 other application

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (18)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 28761/11

  Polen als Handlanger der CIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  The present case does not raise any particular issue that should be analysed under Article 10 alone (see El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, §§ 264-65, ECHR 2012, and Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, §§ 580-82, 24 July 2014).
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  As regards the applicants' complaint with regard to the lack of legal grounds under Armenian law on which to claim compensation for non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the death of a family member, having regard to the applicants' initial submissions in their application (see paragraph 190 above), the Court considers that it amounts to raising a new and distinct complaint under Article 13 of the Convention (see Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 135, 20 March 2018).
• EGMR, 29.06.2012 - 27396/06

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  Even though no plea of inadmissibility concerning compliance with the six-month rule was made by the Government in their observations (see paragraph 189 above), the Court reiterates that it is not open to it to set aside the application of the six-month rule solely because the Government have not made a preliminary objection to that effect (see, for example, Sabri Güneş v. Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 28-31, 29 June 2012).

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  The requisite access of the public or the victim's relatives may, however, be provided for in other stages of the procedure (see, among other authorities, Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 304, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 129, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  Thus, any allegation that A. Nazaryan was murdered would be purely speculative (see, mutatis mutandis, Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 59, 17 June 2008; Durdu, cited above, §§ 59-61; and Nana Muradyan, cited above, §§ 130-31).
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 60441/13

  GÜRTEKIN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  60441/13 and 2 others, § 29, 11 March 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  Failing to follow an obvious line of inquiry undermines to a decisive extent the investigation's ability to establish the circumstances of the case and, where appropriate, the identity of those responsible and is liable to fall foul of the required measure of effectiveness (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, § 135, 24 November 2016, with further references, and Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 126).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  Nevertheless, the material before the Court does not allow it to support "beyond reasonable doubt" the hypothesis that A. Nazaryan's life was taken intentionally (contrast Beker, cited above, §§ 45-54, and Lapshin v. Azerbaijan, no. 13527/18, §§ 110-20, 20 May 2021; see also, mutatis mutandis, Mižigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 89, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  The investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 172; and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 125, 5 April 2022).
• EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 3673/11

  MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 35403/06

  TSINTSABADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08

  ALIYEVA AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 30677/10

  DURDU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 40860/04

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 38287/06

  SAHINKUSU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 4936/12

  TOMAC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.10.2026 - 39092/21

  VIDBERG c. FRANCE

  Rn. 68 La Cour a considéré, dans une affaire concernant des allégations de harcèlement suivi du suicide d'un militaire, que les exigences attachées au volet procédural de l'article 2 de la Convention pouvaient entrer en jeu (Hovhannisyan et Nazaryan c. Arménie, nos 2169/12 et 29887/14, § 124, 8 novembre 2022).
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 48998/14

  VARYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 60 The Law establishing the Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia ("the Internal Service Regulations"), which was enacted on 3 December 1996, is the principal legal instrument regulating military service in the Armenian armed forces (see also Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, § 86, 8 November 2022).

  The Court notes that the Government have previously raised similar objections in other cases concerning fatalities in the army (see, for example, Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 101; Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, § 92, 8 November 2022; and Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan, cited above § 64).

• EGMR, 03.09.2026 - 5442/15

  TOVMASYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 33 While it cannot be ruled out that the belated examination of the case material could have placed the applicant at a disadvantage in some respect, he did not specify how it had jeopardised his legitimate interests in the proceedings (compare Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, §§ 106 and 172-80, 8 November 2022).

• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  2169/12 and 29887/14, § 173, 8 November 2022; see also Gürtekin and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), nos.
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 40410/07

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA

  2169/12 and 29887/14, 8 November 2022; Durdu v. Turkey, no. 30677/10, §§ 69-74, 3 September 2013; and Yasemin Doğan v. Turkey, no. 40860/04, §§ 60-63, 6 September 2016).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14

  DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 73 The Court notes in this connection that it has previously held in other cases concerning fatalities during military service that the conclusions of an internal investigation of this kind cannot be considered a "final decision" for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention in so far as they are of a purely internal nature and do not involve the relatives of the deceased servicemen (see Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, §§ 97-99, 8 November 2022, and Ashot Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 35814/14, §§ 70 and 71, 11 October 2022).
• EGMR, 25.04.2023 - 70665/11

  OHANJANYAN v. ARMENIA

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many other authorities, Nana Muradyan, cited above, § 123, and Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, § 123, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 29.10.2024 - 53081/14

  KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  While it cannot be ruled out that the applicant's lack of involvement until 3 October 2011 (see paragraph 24 above)  that is more than six months after the death of his wife, which had occurred on 23 March 2011 (see paragraph 9 above)  could have somehow hindered his effective participation in the proceedings, the applicant did not specify how that had jeopardised, if indeed it had, his legitimate interests (see, a contrario, Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, §§ 106 and 172-80, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 11.02.2025 - 7355/20

  AYDOGAN c. TÜRKIYE

  Rn. 84 La question principale, à cet égard, est de savoir si les autorités militaires savaient ou auraient dû savoir qu'il y avait un risque réel et immédiat que le requérant s'infligeât intentionnellement une blessure par balle, et, dans l'affirmative, si elles ont fait tout ce que l'on pouvait raisonnablement attendre d'elles pour prévenir ce risque (Tanrıbilir c. Turquie, no 21422/93, § 72, 16 novembre 2000, Keenan, précité, § 93, Kılınç et autres c. Turquie, no 40145/98, § 43, 7 juin 2005, et Hovhannisyan et Nazaryan c. Arménie, nos 2169/12 et 29887/14, § 121, 8 novembre 2022).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 67351/13

  HOVHANNISYAN AND KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court observes in this connection that it has recently examined in other cases, and in the light of similar arguments advanced by the Government, whether such orders issued by the Minister of Defence in cases involving fatalities in the army could be considered a "final decision" within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and concluded that they did not (see, in particular, Ashot Malkhasyan v. Armenia, no. 35814/14, §§ 69-71, 11 October 2022, and Hovhannisyan and Nazaryan v. Armenia, nos. 2169/12 and 29887/14, §§ 95-99, 8 November 2022).
• EGMR, 11.12.2025 - 46569/19

  INTRANUOVO v. ITALY
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 18635/16

  KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 9970/19

  MANUCHARYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2026 - 48419/16

  MUSINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.12.2025 - 5497/17

  KHAGHAGHUTYAN YERKKHOSUTYUN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 30.01.2024 - 919/20

  GÜLMEZ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR - 26854/24 (anhängig)

  MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 31688/20 (anhängig)

  PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA