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 ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• 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, 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, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, 13.01.2015 - 61243/08

  ELBERTE v. LATVIA

  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, 24.06.2014 - 4605/05

  PETROVA v. LATVIA

  The Court considers 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 son'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, 28.01.2016 - 24738/11

  VASYUNETS v. UKRAINE

  The Court notes that the Government did not contend that the applicant could have effectively pursued the matter arising from the incident with his daughter outside the framework of the criminal investigation (compare Sergiyenko v. Ukraine, no. 47690/07, §§ 40 and 42, 19 April 2012).
• 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).