Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MIKHNO v. UKRAINE

  Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to ...

Wird zitiert von ... (25)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 15339/02

  BUDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The State authorities are also under an obligation to conduct a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, among other authorities, Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02, § 140, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 107, 29 March 2011; and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, nos.
• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  Further relevant provisions of the Constitution concerning the appointment and dismissal of judges and the competence of the High Council of Justice can be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine (no. 21722/11, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  As these criminal proceedings were decisive for their "civil rights," these proceedings came within the field of application of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, §§ 62-66 and 74-75, ECHR 2004-I and, as a recent authority, Alexandrescu and Others v. Romania, nos.
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 17423/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05, § 190, 28 February 2012).
• EGMR, 08.01.2013 - 40238/02

  BUCUR ET TOMA c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  These elements included the quality of the procedure under which the military courts operated, in particular as regards confidentiality of deliberations and availability of review by an ordinary court, availability of appropriate training for officers involved in the adjudication of cases; the manner of their appointment, promotion and discipline (in particular, whether those officers remained subject to army appraisal reports and whether those reports could evaluate the quality of their judicial decision-making), and other elements (see, for instance, Maszni, cited above, § 55; Bucur and Toma v. Romania, no. 40238/02, § 140, 8 January 2013; and Mureşan, cited above, §§ 20-22).
• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 45076/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  Examining the facts of the case in light of the above principles, the Court observes that the cumulative amount of the compensatory payments allocated from State funds to the applicants' household and other relatives in connection with the deaths of Sergiy and Tetiana Mikhno via judicial and non-judicial avenues (see paragraphs 60, 65 and 72-74 above), was comparable to the sums the Court itself has awarded under Article 41 of the Convention in other recent judgments against Ukraine which raised similar issues (see, for instance, Gorovenky and Bugara v. Ukraine, nos. 36146/05 and 42418/05, § 55, 12 January 2012; Mosendz, cited above, § 129; and Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, § 95, 5 December 2013).
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  These requirements also extend to the trial stage (see Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 58, 17 June 2008, and Mosendz, cited above, § 94).
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  The Court reiterates from its well-established jurisprudence that where a life-threatening injury or a death occurs, Article 2 requires that an effective judicial system is set up to ensure enforcement of the legislative framework geared to protect the right to life 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).
• EGMR, 25.05.2000 - 29870/96

  YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.09.2016 - 32514/12

  Nevertheless, the Court must look at the composition of the respective military courts and examine the statutory and practical safeguards enabling them to act independently and impartially in resolving these claims (see, mutatis mutandis, Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29870/96, 25 May 2000, and Tanışma v. Turkey, no. 32219/05, §§- 81-84, 17 November 2015).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 29.03.2011 - 23445/03

  ESMUKHAMBETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

  MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 19312/06

  VERGELSKYY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 75804/01

  MIROSHNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 17116/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.02.2014 - 42119/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 17185/02

  FEDINA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.06.2006 - 2132/02

  SIKA v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 40429/08

  PRILUTSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.11.2015 - 32219/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 20.03.2008 - 21166/02
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 5976/08

  ZGONNIK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 37702/06

  MURESAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 09.11.2004 - 72757/01

  BARANOVA v. RUSSIA

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 44312/12

  ERCANKAN c. TURQUIE

  Having regard to those submissions, the Court will first examine how the respondent State has complied with its procedural obligations under Article 2 and then determine whether the applicants' complaints raise an issue under the substantive limb of that provision (see, mutatis mutandis, Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 130, 1 September 2016).

  The Court reiterates in this connection that the absence of special legislative guidelines may be compensated for by other context-specific instructions and measures by the relevant authorities, which appears to have been the situation in the present case (see, for instance, Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 127, 1 September 2016, and Çakmakçı v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3952/11, 2 May 2017).

• EGMR, 20.01.2026 - 73776/14

  IOPPA v. UKRAINE + 3 other applications

  In two comparable cases, which concerned the 2002 Sknyliv air show accident as a result of which 77 people were killed and hundreds sustained injuries, the Court found that Ukraine had carried out an effective investigation into the events (Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 151, 1 September 2016, and Svitlana Atamanyuk and Others v. Ukraine, nos.
• EGMR, 13.04.2023 - 14709/07

  MAYBORODA v. UKRAINE

  In this context, the dismissal, in the civil proceedings, of some of the applicant's arguments and her claims against the hospital and other defendants does not disclose any appearance of arbitrariness or manifestly deficient approach (compare, mutatis mutandis, Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 146, 1 September 2016).

• EGMR, 05.12.2019 - 31585/02

  BENYAMINSON CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 12 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  32514/12.
• EGMR - 35857/06

  YUDIN v. UKRAINE and 31 other applications

  32514/12.
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 47992/12

  SADAY ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  Within the particular context of loss of life or serious injury incurred in connection with dangerous activities, such as in the instant case, the Court has considered that an official criminal investigation is indispensable (see Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016, and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 06.06.2017 - 9441/10

  SINIM v. TURKEY

  Such a system may, and under certain circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law (see Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, § 131, 1 September 2016).
• EGMR, 02.07.2026 - 37590/18
  Rn. 32 The relevant general principles concerning the effectiveness of an investigation were set out in Mikhno v. Ukraine (no. 32514/12, §§ 131-34, 1 September 2016, with further references).
• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10

  SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Without knowledge of such crucial facts, it is impossible to assess properly the applicant's claim that the respondent State should be held responsible for the alleged breach of the traffic regulations on account of either negligent or deliberate conduct on the part of the AMV driver, who was either a military or police officer at the material time (see paragraph 14 above; contrast Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, §§ 125 and 129, 1 September 2016, and Kotelnikov v. Russia, no. 45104/05, §§ 93 and 94, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 18.06.2020 - 24391/10

  SAFONOV AND SAFONOVA v. UKRAINE

  It further notes that neither its well-established case law (see, among many other authorities, Voytenko v. Ukraine, no. 18966/02, § 48, 29 June 2004; Sylenok and Tekhnoservis-Plyus v. Ukraine, no. 20988/02, § 89, 9 December 2010; and Mikhno v. Ukraine, no. 32514/12, 1 September 2016) nor any fact or argument suggest that the applicants had any effective remedies for their non-enforcement complaints.
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 1227/06

  TETYANA GAVRYLOVA AND DENYS GAVRYLOV v. UKRAINEand 4 other applications
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 32545/12

  MAKAROVY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 32604/12

  KHRAMKOVY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 64289/12

  ÖZÜTEMIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.04.2024 - 55009/20

  HUCI c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 27.09.2022 - 29874/18

  HANGANU ET GADALEAN c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 45240/09

  DOROGYKH v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 78906/11

  SAN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 66687/11

  KARAKUS v. TURKEY
• EGMR - 7749/23 (anhängig)

  KRASNIKOV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 51309/20

  IONIÈšA c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 22879/10

  UYKUR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 27.06.2017 - 47021/10

  ÖZDEMIR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 3952/11

  ÇAKMAKÇI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.01.2017 - 32454/06

  MINDROVA v. UKRAINE