Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MINDROVA v. UKRAINE

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 45076/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  The Court notes that this amount is comparable to the amounts awarded by it in other cases against Ukraine which concerned failure of the State authorities to protect the right to life (see Gorovenky and Bugara v. Ukraine, nos. 36146/05 and 42418/05, § 55, 12 January 2012; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 129, 17 January 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 95, 5 December 2013; and Lovyginy v. Ukraine, no. 22323/08, § 120, 23 June 2016).
• EGMR, 19.10.2004 - 67299/01

  DUBJAKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  Those considerations include the domestic legal system and legal traditions in the respondent State; the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned; and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than one sought through an application to the Court (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 206 and 268, CEDH 2006-V; Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004; Firstov, cited above, § 31; and Simanovičs v. Latvia, no. 55047/12, (dec.), 18 November 2014).
• EGMR, 23.03.2010 - 4864/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  There can be no sum large enough to constitute an equivalent to the sorrow, pain and distress suffered by a person whose life has been subjected to a mortal risk or who has lost a family member in tragic circumstances (see, mutatis mutandis, Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 106, 23 March 2010).

• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  The Court notes that this amount is comparable to the amounts awarded by it in other cases against Ukraine which concerned failure of the State authorities to protect the right to life (see Gorovenky and Bugara v. Ukraine, nos. 36146/05 and 42418/05, § 55, 12 January 2012; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 129, 17 January 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 95, 5 December 2013; and Lovyginy v. Ukraine, no. 22323/08, § 120, 23 June 2016).
• EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  On 27 July 2002 Oleg Zheykov, the applicant's nephew born in 1991 was killed in the Sknyliv air show accident (for more details concerning the accident, ensuing investigation and State aid to the victims see Mikhno v. Ukraine (no. 32514/12, §§ 6-8, 12-58 and 67-71, 1 September 2016).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award may nevertheless be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  In fact, there is no standard by which pain and suffering, psychological distress and anguish can be measured in terms of money (see, for example, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 35, 20 February 2014).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  ZGONNIK v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  Even compensation which is lower than the amount the Court would itself award may nevertheless be considered reasonable, provided that the relevant decision of the domestic courts is consistent with the legal tradition and standard of living in the country concerned and is speedy, reasoned and executed quickly (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 189 and 206; Sizarev v. Ukraine, no. 17116/04, §§ 93-94, 17 January 2013; and Zgonnik v. Ukraine, no. 5976/08 (dec.), 18 December 2012).
• EGMR, 18.11.2014 - 55047/12

  SIMANOVICS v. LATVIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  Those considerations include the domestic legal system and legal traditions in the respondent State; the standard of living and the general level of incomes in the State concerned; and the fact that a remedy in the national system is closer and more accessible than one sought through an application to the Court (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 206 and 268, CEDH 2006-V; Dubjaková v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67299/01, 19 October 2004; Firstov, cited above, § 31; and Simanovičs v. Latvia, no. 55047/12, (dec.), 18 November 2014).
• EGMR, 23.06.2016 - 22323/08

  LOVYGINY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  The Court notes that this amount is comparable to the amounts awarded by it in other cases against Ukraine which concerned failure of the State authorities to protect the right to life (see Gorovenky and Bugara v. Ukraine, nos. 36146/05 and 42418/05, § 55, 12 January 2012; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 129, 17 January 2013; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 95, 5 December 2013; and Lovyginy v. Ukraine, no. 22323/08, § 120, 23 June 2016).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.07.2018 - 58240/08

  SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA and 1 other application

  The Court reiterates that a decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him or her of the status as a "victim" unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, inter alia, Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR 1999-VI, and Mindrova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32454/06, § 21, 31 January 2017).
• EGMR, 01.12.2020 - 21024/08

  [ENG]

  As for the amount of compensation awarded to the applicants, the Court reiterates that reparation for the damage caused should be comparable to just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, for instance, Firstov v. Russia, no. 42119/04, § 35, 20 February 2014, and Mindrova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32454/06, §§ 24 and 25, 31 January 2017).
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

  TETYANA GAVRYLOVA AND DENYS GAVRYLOV v. UKRAINEand 4 other applications

  The Court notes that the compensatory payments awarded to the applicants in the present cases were generally lower - and, in most cases, considerably so - than the awards to other Sknyliv accident victims whose cases have already been decided and in whose respect the domestic redress has been found equitable (see Mikhno, cited above, §§ 60, 65, 72-73 and 118; Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others, cited above, §§ 121-124; Mindrova v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 32454/06, § 25, 31 January 2017; Makarovy and Others v. Ukraine (dec.) [Committee], no. 32545/12, § 27 and Appendix, 29 August 2017; and Khramkovy and Others, cited above, §§ 18-19, 22, 26-28, 31-32 and 49, 29 August 2017).
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 32604/12

  KHRAMKOVY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Leaving aside questions relating to the applicability of Article 2 which might arise in relation to other cases involving survivors of accidents, in the present case, having assessed the redress provided to these applicants at the domestic level (see paragraphs 18-19, 22, 26-28, 31-32 and 36-37 above), the Court considers that these complaints have also been sufficiently addressed by the national authorities (see also mutatis mutandis Mindrova v. Ukraine no. 32454/06 (dec.), §§ 23-25 and 27-28, 31 January 2017).