Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 38765/05 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
OLEYNIKOVA v. UKRAINE
Art. 2 MRK
Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) (englisch)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Oleynikova v. Ukraine
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[ENG]
Wird zitiert von ... (7) Neu Zitiert selbst (2)
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 38765/05
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, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99
MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 38765/05
More specifically, where death occurs in suspicious circumstances leaving room for any allegations of an intentional taking of life, the State must ensure some form of effective official investigation (see Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V, and Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, §§ 156-157, 9 April 2009).
- EGMR, 18.01.2024 - 44244/19
KENTESH AND BORODYNYA v. UKRAINE
Ukraine, no. 38765/05,. - EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 17860/17
GOLOBORODKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
Decisions refusing to institute proceedings issued without the circumstances of the case having been properly examined (Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, §§ 80-81, 15 December 2011, with further references);. - EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 12991/10
MANDRYKA v. UKRAINE
decisions refusing to institute proceedings issued without the circumstances of the case having been properly examined (Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, §§ 80-81, 15 December 2011, with further references),.
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 13094/19
BOGUTA AND TERESHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
decisions refusing to institute proceedings issued without the circumstances of the case having been properly examined (Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, §§ 80-81, 15 December 2011, with further references),. - EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 35431/21
LEZNYUK v. UKRAINE
decisions refusing to institute proceedings issued without the circumstances of the case having been properly examined (Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, §§ 80-81, 15 December 2011, with further references),. - EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 68748/17
YEFIMOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
decisions refusing to institute proceedings issued without the circumstances of the case having been properly examined (Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, §§ 80-81, 15 December 2011, with further references),. - EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11
VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE
The Court has already examined a number of factually similar cases against Ukraine and concluded that such repeated remittal orders disclosed a serious deficiency in the criminal investigation of a case (see, for example, Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, § 81, 15 December 2011, and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 56, 31 July 2012).
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 22737/04, 21454/04, 5952/07, 48229/10, 15938/02, 38765/05, 40458/08 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IGOR SHEVCHENKO CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 6 AUTRES AFFAIRES
Informations fournies par le gouvernement concernant les mesures prises permettant d'éviter de nouvelles violations. Versement des sommes prévues dans l'arrêt (französisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
IGOR SHEVCHENKO AGAINST UKRAINE AND 6 OTHER CASES
Information given by the government concerning measures taken to prevent new violations. Payment of the sums provided for in the judgment (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 12.01.2012 - 22737/04
- EGMR, 21.09.2017 - 22737/04, 21454/04, 5952/07, 48229/10, 15938/02, 38765/05, 40458/08
Wird zitiert von ... (8)
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 13094/19
BOGUTA AND TERESHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 38, 12 January 2012).lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities' ability to establish the circumstances of the case (Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),.
lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities' ability to establish the circumstances of the case (Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),.
- EGMR, 21.09.2023 - 35431/21
LEZNYUK v. UKRAINE
The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaint at issue falls to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 38, 12 January 2012).(Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),.
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 12991/10
MANDRYKA v. UKRAINE
The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 38, 12 January 2012).lack of thoroughness and promptness which undermined the authorities' ability to establish the circumstances of the case (Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 40, 17 October 2013),.
- EGMR, 13.01.2022 - 68748/17
YEFIMOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
The Court, which is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, finds that the complaints at issue fall to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention (see Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 38, 12 January 2012). - EGMR, 02.09.2014 - 28732/09
SANSAL c. TURQUIE
De plus, la Cour rappelle que la responsabilité de l'État au titre de l'article 2 de la Convention trouve également à s'appliquer dans les cas des accidents de la route ou de la sécurité routière lorsque l'atteinte au droit à la vie ou à l'intégrité physique n'était pas volontaire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Irena Rajkowska c. Pologne (déc.), no 37393/02, 27 novembre 2007, Railean c. Moldova, no 23401/04, § 30, 5 janvier 2010, Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 72, 24 mai 2011, Igor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, et Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012). - EGMR, 27.03.2018 - 36783/09
ARIK c. TURQUIE
La Cour rappelle que la responsabilité de l'État au titre de l'article 2 de la Convention trouve également à s'appliquer dans les cas des accidents de la route ou de la sécurité routière (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Railean c. Moldova, no 23401/04, § 30, 5 janvier 2010, Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 72, 24 mai 2011, 1gor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012, Sansal c. Turquie, no 28732/09, § 47, 2 septembre 2014, et Rajkowska, décision précitée). - EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 49626/07
TIKHOMIROVA c. RUSSIE
La Cour rappelle qu'elle a eu l'occasion d'examiner à maintes reprises, sur le terrain de l'article 2 de la Convention, des situations où une perte de vies humaines a résulté d'un accident de la circulation (voir, parmi d'autres, Kotelnikov c. Russie, no 45104/05, § 101, 12 juillet 2016, Basyuk c. Ukraine, no 51151/10, § 56, 5 novembre 2015, Ciobanu c. République de Moldova, no 62578/09, § 32, 24 février 2015, Starcevic c. Croatie, no 80909/12, § 56, 13 novembre 2014, Zubkova c. Ukraine, no 36660/08, § 35, 17 octobre 2013, Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012, Sergiyenko c. Ukraine, no 47690/07, § 48, 19 avril 2012, Igor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, Antonov c. Ukraine, no 28096/04, § 44, 3 novembre 2011, et Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 76, 24 mai 2011). - EGMR, 13.10.2015 - 58200/10
DEMIR c. TURQUIE
La Cour rappelle que la responsabilité de l'État au titre de l'article 2 de la Convention trouve également à s'appliquer dans les cas des accidents de la route ou de la sécurité routière lorsque l'atteinte au droit à la vie ou à l'intégrité physique n'était pas volontaire (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Irena Rajkowska c. Pologne, précitée, Railean c. Moldova, no 23401/04, § 30, 5 janvier 2010, Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 72, 24 mai 2011, Igor Shevchenko c. Ukraine, no 22737/04, § 56, 12 janvier 2012, Prynda c. Ukraine, no 10904/05, § 50, 31 juillet 2012, et Sansal c. Turquie, no 28732/09, § 47, 2 septembre 2014).