Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REUS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Reus and Others v. Ukraine

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  REUS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  The Court will therefore confine itself to examining whether the criminal investigation into the death of the applicant's son satisfied the criteria of effectiveness required by Article 2 of the Convention (see Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 47-49, 3 November 2011; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 54, 31 July 2012; and Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 38, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 10904/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  The Court will therefore confine itself to examining whether the criminal investigation into the death of the applicant's son satisfied the criteria of effectiveness required by Article 2 of the Convention (see Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 47-49, 3 November 2011; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 54, 31 July 2012; and Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 38, 17 October 2013).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36660/08

  ZUBKOVA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  The Court will therefore confine itself to examining whether the criminal investigation into the death of the applicant's son satisfied the criteria of effectiveness required by Article 2 of the Convention (see Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 47-49, 3 November 2011; Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, § 54, 31 July 2012; and Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, § 38, 17 October 2013).

• EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  The Court notes that the Government did not contend that the applicants could effectively pursue the matter arising from the traffic accident outside the framework of the criminal investigation (compare Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 40 and 42, 19 April 2012).
• EGMR, 14.11.2013 - 54755/08

  NIKONENKO v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  Therefore, leaving aside the question of whether the remedy suggested by the Government could have offered adequate redress in respect of the applicants" complaints, the Court considers that the applicant was not required to exhaust that remedy (see Aleksandr Nikonenko v. Ukraine, no. 54755/08, § 36, 14 November 2013).
• EGMR, 15.12.2011 - 38765/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  The repetition of those remittal orders discloses a serious deficiency in the criminal investigation (see Oleynikova v. Ukraine, no. 38765/05, § 81, 15 December 2011).
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 30081/02

  KALLO v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  It has not been disputed that his son, Oleksandr Georgiyovych Cheban, is entitled to pursue the application on his behalf and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see, mutatis mutandis, Kalló v. Hungary, no. 30081/02, § 25, 11 April 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 55896/10

  OSADCHA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  Those facts suggest that there had been no genuine attempt on the part of the investigating authorities to carry out a thorough investigation of the accident (see among other authorities, Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, § 52, 19 April 2012; Zubkova v. Ukraine, no. 36660/08, §§ 40-41, 17 October 2013; Reus and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 40587/07, § 27, 16 October 2014; Shulga v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 40298/06,§§ 45-46, 12 November 2015).

  The investigation has been pending for more than 9 years (including for 2 years and 7 months in the form of a pre-investigative inquiry) and the circumstances of the accident were not established, which compromised the effectiveness of the investigation (see, among other authorities, Igor Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 22737/04, § 60, 12 January 2012; Reus and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 40587/07, § 27, 16 October 2014; Chumak v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 60790/12, § 27, 19 May 2016);.

• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 60790/12

  CHUMAK v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the Government's observations and in view of its well-established case-law as regards the subject-matter of the application (see, for example, Reus and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 40587/07, § 29, 16 October 2014), the Court considers it appropriate to examine the application in a Committee of three judges pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 26.05.2016 - 40458/08

  TUCHIN AND TUCHINA v. UKRAINE

  Therefore, leaving aside the question of whether the remedy suggested by the Government could have offered adequate redress in respect of the applicants' complaints, the Court considers that the applicants were not required to use that remedy (see Reus and Others v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 40587/07, § 22, 16 October 2014).
• EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 23195/11

  KUTSEVYCHI v. UKRAINE

  Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed - which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases (see e.g. judgments in the cases of Arskaya, cited above, § 95; Valeriy Fuklev, cited above, § 104; Nikolay Volkogonov and Igor Volkogonov v. Ukraine, [Committee], no. 40525/05, § 66, 28 November 2013; Reus and others v. Ukraine, [Committee], no. 40587/07, § 34, 16 October 2014; Padura v. Ukraine, [Committee], no. 48229/10, § 55, 11 December 2014 and Barsukovy v. Ukraine, [Committee], no. 23081/07, § 31, 26 January 2015) - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).