Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  For more details of the report see Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 70, 24 April 2014.

  The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Perevedentsevy v. Russia (no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014), and, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal ([GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 104-12, 31 January 2019), and Kurt v. Austria ([GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-160, 15 June 2021).

• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 62903/15

  EGMR zu Recht auf Leben im Falle häuslicher Gewalt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  The Court will examine the matter in the light of the relevant general principles, as summarised in Perevedentsevy v. Russia (no. 39583/05, §§ 90-94, 24 April 2014), and, mutatis mutandis, Fernandes de Oliveira v. Portugal ([GC], no. 78103/14, §§ 104-12, 31 January 2019), and Kurt v. Austria ([GC], no. 62903/15, §§ 157-160, 15 June 2021).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTER OF LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CAMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  The Court reiterates that where an alleged failure on the part of the authorities to protect persons from the acts of others is concerned, Article 13 of the Convention requires that there should be available to the victim or the victim's family a mechanism for establishing any liability on the part of State officials or bodies for acts or omissions involving a breach of their rights under the Convention (see, for instance, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 149, ECHR 2014, and Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 26562/07 and 6 others, § 620, 13 April 2017, both with further references).

• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  18/04/2022.
• EGMR, 29.04.2003 - 50390/99

  McGLINCHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  The Court itself will often award just satisfaction, recognising pain, stress, anxiety and frustration as rendering appropriate compensation for non-pecuniary damage (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  Accordingly, not every claimed risk to life can entail a Convention requirement for the authorities to take operational measures to prevent that risk from materialising (see Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  Rather, what is important - and what is sufficient to engage the responsibility of the State under that article - is that the reasonable measures that the domestic authorities failed to take could have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.06.2012 - 22999/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  Furthermore, in the case of a breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, which rank as the most fundamental provisions of the Convention, compensation for non-pecuniary damage flowing from the breach in question should in principle be part of the range of available remedies (see, mutatis mutandis, Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001-V, and Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, § 130, ECHR 2001-III; and, for instance, Poghosyan and Baghdasaryan v. Armenia, no. 22999/06, §§ 44-48, ECHR 2012, and Mirzoyan v. Armenia, no. 57129/10, §§ 78-83, 23 May 2019).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  The Court, as well as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (see paragraph 28 above) has required the States to take appropriate measures to combat hazing practices in their armed forces (see Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 113, 17 January 2013, and Perevedentsevy, cited above, §§ 99-100).
• EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 5821/10

  GERASIMENKO AND SALIKHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  5821/10 and 65523/12, § 82, 1 December 2016).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications

  [1] See Filippovy v. Russia, 19355/09; Khudoroshko v. Russia, 3959/14; Nevostruyeva v. Russia (dec.), 51185/11, 1 June 2021; Nasibullin v. Russia (dec.), 64774/09, 7 January 2020; Pavlova v. Russia (dec.), 25835/10, 28 January 2020; and Khabirov v. Russia, no. 69450/10, 12 October 2021.