Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FEDORCHENKO AND LOZENKO v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+2 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Procedural aspect) Violation of Article 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Fedorchenko and Lozenko v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 57325/00

  D.H. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 387/03

  However, Article 14 does not prohibit a member State from treating groups differently in order to correct "factual inequalities" between them; indeed in certain circumstances a failure to attempt to correct inequality through different treatment may in itself give rise to a breach of the Article (see D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 175, ECHR 2007-....).
• EGMR, 24.04.2003 - 24351/94

  AKTAS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 387/03

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny, even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place (see Aktas v. Turkey, no. 24351/94, § 271, ECHR 2003-V (extracts), with further references).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 387/03

  A failure to make a distinction in the way in which situations that are essentially different are handled may constitute unjustified treatment irreconcilable with Article 14 of the Convention (see, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; mutatis mutandis, Secic v. Croatia, cited above, § 67).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 18183/05

  KHAINDRAVA ET DZAMASHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 387/03

  In all cases, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see, for example, Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, §§ 321-322, ECHR 2007-II; Khaindrava and Dzamashvili v. Georgia, no. 18183/05, §§ 59-61, 8 June 2010; Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 222-225, ECHR 2004-III; and Güleç v. Turkey, 27 July 1998, § 82, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 20.09.2012 - 387/03

  However, it should in principle be capable of leading to the establishment of the facts of the case and, if the allegations prove to be true, to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 71, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 28.10.2014 - 25018/10

  IBRAHIM DEMIRTAS c. TURQUIE

  Dans l'affaire Fedorchenko et Lozenko c. Ukraine, la Cour a rappelé que « l'article 2 de la Convention impose à l'État le devoir d'assurer le droit à la vie en mettant en place un cadre de droit pénal effectif propre à dissuader de commettre des atteintes contre la personne et s'appuyant sur un mécanisme d'application conçu pour en prévenir, supprimer et sanctionner les violations'(no 387/03, § 41, arrêt du 20 septembre 2012).
• EGMR, 13.10.2016 - 2319/14

  KITANOVSKA STANOJKOVIC AND OTHERS v.

  The Court therefore considers that this Article applies in the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 38, ECHR 2012 (extracts), Fedorchenko and Lozenko v. Ukraine, no. 387/03, § 41, 20 September 2012; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, § 232, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and Angelova and Iliev v. Bulgaria, no. 55523/00, §§ 92-93, 26 July 2007).
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 655/16

  LAKATOSOVÁ AND LAKATOS v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court reiterates that the obligation to protect the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the State's general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within [its] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 110, ECHR 2005-VII), even where the presumed perpetrator of the attack is not a State agent (see Georgi Georgiev v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 34137/03, 11 January 2011 with further references; Fedorchenko and Lozenko v. Ukraine, no. 387/03, § 64, 20 September 2012; and Balázs, cited above, § 51).