Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04   

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/2008,45826
EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 3013/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,45826)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06.11.2008 - 3013/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,45826)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 06. November 2008 - 3013/04 (https://dejure.org/2008,45826)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2008,45826) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
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 ... (13)

  • EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

    Massaker von Katyn

    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, 20.12.2011 - 18299/03

    Vorgehen bei Geiselnahme in Moskau verurteilt // Russland muss Hinterbliebene von

    To be "effective", an investigation should meet several basic requirements, formulated in the Court's case-law under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: it should be thorough (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 103 et seq., Reports 1998-VIII; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman v. Turkey, cited above, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 1999-IV; and Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000), expedient (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV; Timurtas v. Turkeyc cited above, § 89; Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV; and Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and independent (see ÖÄ?ur v. Turkey, [GC], no. 21954/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III; see also Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 37, 20 July 2004; and Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 80-82, Reports 1998-IV); and the materials and conclusions of the investigation should be sufficiently accessible for the relatives of the victims (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III, and Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 106, 6 November 2008), to the extent it does not seriously undermine its efficiency.
  • EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 24677/10

    KORYAK v. RUSSIA

    16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 200, ECHR 2009; see also Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 114, 6 November 2008, as regards Article 3 claims).
  • EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 40020/03

    M. AND OTHERS v. ITALY AND BULGARIA

    The Court thus considered that in the specific circumstances of such cases the moral suffering endured by the applicants had reached a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of a serious human rights violation (see, Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 121, 6 November 2008 and Akpınar and Altun v. Turkey, no. 56760/00, § 86, 27 February 2007).
  • EGMR, 05.06.2012 - 27026/10

    BUNTOV v. RUSSIA

    Fourth, the victim should be able to participate effectively in the investigation in one form or another, in particular, by having access to the materials of the investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III, and Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 106, 6 November 2008; see also Denis Vasilyev v. Russia, no. 32704/04, § 157, 17 December 2009; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, § 92, ECHR 2008 (extracts); and Ognyanova and Choban v. Bulgaria, no. 46317/99, § 107, 23 February 2006).
  • EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 29729/09

    KHAYRULLINA v. RUSSIA

    Leaving aside the question of the applicant's standing (compare Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 120 et seq., 6 November 2008, with further references) and in view of the Court's findings under Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention, it is not necessary to give a separate examination of the admissibility and merits of the present complaint.
  • EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 5269/08

    SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA

    To be "effective", an investigation should meet several basic requirements, formulated in the Court's case-law under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: it should be thorough (see Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, §§ 103 et seq., Reports 1998-VIII; see also, mutatis mutandis, Salman, cited above, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 104 et seq., ECHR 1999-IV; and Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000), expedient (see Tekin v. Turkey, 9 June 1998, § 67, Reports 1998-IV; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 133 et seq., ECHR 2000-IV; Timurtas, cited above, § 89; and Indelicato v. Italy, no. 31143/96, § 37, 18 October 2001), and independent (see Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, §§ 80-82, Reports 1998-IV; ÖÄ?ur v. Turkey, [GC], no. 21954/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III; and Mehmet Emin Yüksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, § 37, 20 July 2004); and the materials and conclusions of the investigation should be sufficiently accessible to the relatives of the victims (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III, and Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 106, 6 November 2008), to the extent that it does not seriously undermine its efficiency.
  • VG Minden, 10.01.2013 - 4 K 201/11

    Anerkennung als Asylberechtigter bei Einreise auf dem Landweg aus einem sicheren

    "Die Situation in Sri Lanka - insbesondere die Sicherheitslage - hat sich seit ... Mai 2007 zwar zunächst verschärft, rechtfertigt jedoch (wie das erkennende Gericht bereits in seinen Urteilen vom 29. April 2009 - 3 A 3013/04.A - und - 3 A 627/07.A -, vom 8. Juli 2009 - 3 A 3295/07.A -, vom 2. September 2009 - 3 A 2840/08.A -, vom 29. Oktober 2009 - 3 A 2275/07.A -, vom 20. Januar 2010 - 3 A 2234/08.A -, vom 11. Juni 2010 - 3 A 3296/07.A - sowie vom 24. August 2010 - 3 A 1170/09.A - festgestellt hat) zum maßgeblichen Zeitpunkt der Entscheidung (§ 77 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Halbsatz 1 AsylVfG) nach wie vor nicht die Annahme, dass Tamilen im allgemeinen oder Untergruppen hiervon, wie etwa zurückkehrende Asylbewerber, männliche Tamilen jüngeren bzw. mittleren Alters oder Tamilen aus dem Norden und Osten in Sri Lanka allein aufgrund ihrer Volkszugehörigkeit landesweit oder regional einer staatlichen Gruppenverfolgung ausgesetzt sind.
  • EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 30385/07

    SZERDAHELYI v. HUNGARY

    16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 200, 18 September 2009; see also Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 114, 6 November 2008, as regards Article 3 claims).
  • EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 11528/07

    TAYMUSKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

    The Court therefore considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (see Khadzhialiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 3013/04, § 140, 6 November 2008).
  • EGMR, 03.10.2013 - 2215/05

    ARAPKHANOVY v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.06.2010 - 2220/05

    VAKAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.02.2011 - 1572/07

    NASUKHANOVY 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