Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SERGIYENKO v. UKRAINE

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

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (31)Zitiert selbst (6)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 37393/02

  RAJKOWSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for a death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 66-67), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities" part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 211, 9 April 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011).

  This approach has been applied in respect of deaths resulting from medical negligence (see Silih, cited above) and also in respect of fatal road-traffic accidents (see Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007).

• EGMR, 28.07.2009 - 30754/04

  DVORACEK AND DVORACKOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for a death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 66-67), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities" part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 211, 9 April 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011).

  However, up to now the Court has found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 only where the investigation was not only long and ineffective, but also, as a consequence of the length and of the lack of diligence, the perpetrator could either not be identified or his or her responsibility could not be proven, so that ultimately the victim was deprived of any redress (see Anna Todorova, cited above; Silih, cited above; and Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, 28 July 2009, which became final on 28 October 2009).

• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 17185/02

  FEDINA v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  However, if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation imposed by Article 2 to set up an effective judicial system does not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case (see Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, § 62, 2 September 2010, with further references).

  Contrary to the approach taken in the present case, delays in the investigation have up to now been considered as a violation of Article 6 alone (see Fedina v. Ukraine, no. 17185/02, 2 September 2010).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  Article 2 ranks as one of the most fundamental provisions of the Convention (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 147, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 12.02.2004 - 47287/99

  PEREZ c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  In this respect the Court reiterates that, although the right to have third parties prosecuted or sentenced for a criminal offence cannot be asserted independently (see Perez v. France [GC], no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I), the Court has stated on a number of occasions that an effective judicial system, as required by Article 2, may, and under certain circumstances must, include recourse to the criminal law.
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.04.2012 - 47690/07

  In line with the above, while identification and punishment of those responsible for a death and the availability of compensatory remedies to the applicant are important criteria in the assessment of whether or not the State has discharged its Article 2 obligation (see, among other authorities, Rajkowska v. Poland (dec.), no. 37393/02, 27 November 2007, and Fedina v. Ukraine, cited above, §§ 66-67), in a number of recent cases before the Court the finding of a violation was largely based on the existence of unreasonable delays and a lack of diligence on the authorities" part in conducting the proceedings, regardless of their final outcome (see, for example, Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 211, 9 April 2009; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 70, 28 July 2009; Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, §§ 50-51, 3 November 2011).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  [ENG]

  The Court is of the view that the applicant was not required to submit to the civil courts a separate, additional request for compensation, which could also have given rise to a finding that the removal of her husband's organs had been carried out contrary to the domestic procedure and that her rights as the closest relative had been breached (see also Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 40-43, 19 April 2012; Arskaya v. Ukraine, no. 45076/05, §§ 75-81, 5 December 2013; and Valeriy Fuklev v. Ukraine, no. 6318/03, §§ 77-83, 16 January 2014, where the applicants were not required to lodge separate civil claims for the alleged medical malpractice).
• EGMR, 22.04.2021 - 31557/07

  PRYGUNOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  (i) The investigation was marked by an unusually high number of repeated forensic medical examinations, which suggests the absence of a comprehensive approach to the collection of evidence during the pre-trial investigation phase (see, for example, Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, § 68, 5 November 2015; Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, § 52, 19 April 2012);.

  (i) The investigation was marked by an unusually high number of repeated forensic medical examinations, which suggests the absence of a comprehensive approach to the collection of evidence during the pre-trial investigation phase (see, for example, Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, § 68, 5 November 2015; Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, § 52, 19 April 2012);.

• EGMR, 04.02.2021 - 63243/13

  GOROPATSKIY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  (iii) Despite the fact that the investigation into the death of the applicant's son was finally discontinued with a conclusion that he had committed suicide, it lasted an excessively long time and was marked by substantial shortcomings (see, mutatis mutandis, Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 51-53, 19 April 2012).

  (ii) Despite the fact that, after U. had confessed to the murder of the applicant's mother, a sufficiently thorough investigation was conducted, substantial shortcomings at its preliminary stage had led to the proceedings lasting for more than six years and six months (see, mutatis mutandis, Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 51-53, 19 April 2012).

• EGMR, 05.12.2013 - 45076/05

  [ENG]

  This principle was followed in the case of Sergiyenko v. Ukraine (no. 47690/07, 19 April 2012), which concerned allegations of the ineffectiveness of a criminal investigation into a road-traffic accident resulting in the death of the applicant's son.
• EGMR, 02.06.2016 - 20142/10

  DERNOVYY AND DERNOVA v. UKRAINE

  Examining the circumstances of the present case in light of the principles established in its jurisprudence (see, in particular, Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, §§ 72-74, 24 May 2011; Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 48-50, 19 April 2012 and Prynda v. Ukraine, no. 10904/05, §§ 50-54, 31 July 2012) the Court notes that the proceedings with a view to establishing whether S. was guilty of an offence in the context of the traffic accident lasted from May 2006 until October 2013, that is seven years and five months, and were accompanied by a number of delays.

  This fact suggests the lack of a comprehensive approach to the collection of evidence during the pre-trial investigation phase (see Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, § 52, 19 April 2012).

• EGMR, 05.11.2015 - 51151/10

  BASYUK v. UKRAINE

  At the same time, the fact that the same type of forensic examination was ordered several times within the same criminal case suggests to the Court the lack of a comprehensive approach to the collection of evidence during the pre-trial investigation phase (see Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, § 52, 19 April 2012).
• EGMR, 17.10.2013 - 36660/08

  ZUBKOVA v. UKRAINE

  Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the Government did not contend that the applicant could effectively pursue the matter outside the framework of the criminal investigation (compare Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 40 and 42, 19 April 2012).
• 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).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 23081/07

  BARSUKOVY CONTRE L'UKRAINE ET 13 AUTRES AFFAIRES

  47690/07.
• EGMR, 29.06.2023 - 22207/12

  DRAZMAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  In those proceedings the civil courts relied on, inter alia, the conclusions reached by the criminal courts (see, among other authorities, Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, § 52, 19 April 2012, and Basyuk v. Ukraine, no. 51151/10, §§ 67-68, 5 November 2015).
• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10

  SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 6318/03

  VALERIY FUKLEV v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 24.02.2015 - 62578/09

  CIOBANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 14.02.2019 - 20295/07

  ZORINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 18.12.2018 - 8976/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.05.2016 - 60790/12

  CHUMAK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 26.02.2015 - 40429/08

  PRILUTSKIY v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 40587/07

  REUS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 10.06.2021 - 20789/14

  BLIZNYUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 61946/12

  ZOLTAI v. HUNGARY AND IRELAND
• EGMR, 11.06.2015 - 42279/08

  MASHCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 07.05.2015 - 29697/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 10558/11

  LYUBOV KOSMATA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.07.2025 - 60191/16

  ZHUKOV AND ZHUKOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 49626/07

  TIKHOMIROVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11

  VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 13.11.2014 - 80909/12

  STARCEVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2025 - 33944/13

  LUKASHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 17317/08

  KABANOVA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 28.07.2016 - 65663/12

  MARCHUK v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 14.01.2016 - 8347/12

  SHEPELENKO v. UKRAINE