Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,16579
EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16579)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03.05.2012 - 49379/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16579)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 03. Mai 2012 - 49379/09 (https://dejure.org/2012,16579)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,16579) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    SHAFIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
    No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (42)Zitiert selbst (19)

  • EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

    TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey, cited above, § 106, and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109).

    Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the identity of the person responsible will risk falling below this standard (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey, cited above, § 106, and Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109).

  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    The Court is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).

    In all cases, however, the next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III).

  • EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

    TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    Referring to its settled case-law, the Court reiterates that, where a person has been abducted by State security forces and has subsequently disappeared, his or her relatives can claim to be victims of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental distress caused by the "disappearance" of their family member and the authorities" reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III, and Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 96-98, ECHR 2000-VI).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 29361/02

    KUKAYEV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    The Court notes that it has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of relatives of missing persons in a series of cases concerning the phenomenon of "disappearances" in the Chechen Republic (see, for example, Luluyev and Others, cited above, §§ 117-18; Khamila Isayeva v. Russia, no. 6846/02, §§ 143-45, 15 November 2007; and Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 10710, 15 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 17.06.2010 - 26974/06

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    Nor is there any basis to presume that he was ever placed in unacknowledged detention under the control of State agents (see Tovsultanova v. Russia, no. 26974/06, § 111, 17 June 2010).
  • EGMR, 06.11.2008 - 10796/04

    SHAIPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    Having regard to the finding of a violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect (see paragraph 96 above), the Court considers that, whilst the complaint under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 is admissible, there is no need for a separate examination of this complaint on its merits (see, Khumaydov and Khumaydov, cited above, § 141; Zakriyeva and Others, cited above § 108; and Shaipova and Others v. Russia, no. 10796/04, § 124, 6 November 2008).
  • EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 20583/04

    ZAKRIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    Furthermore, in the absence of a finding of State responsibility for the disappearance of Sirazhudin Shafiyev, the Court is not persuaded that the investigating authorities" conduct, albeit negligent to the extent that it has breached Article 2 in its procedural aspect, could have in itself caused the applicant mental distress in excess of the minimum level of severity which is necessary in order to consider treatment as falling within the scope of Article 3 (see, for a similar situation, Khumaydov and Khumaydov v. Russia, no. 13862/05, §§ 130-31, 28 May 2009, and Zakriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 20583/04, §§ 97-98, 8 January 2009).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2009 - 13862/05

    KHUMAYDOV AND KHUMAYDOV v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    Furthermore, in the absence of a finding of State responsibility for the disappearance of Sirazhudin Shafiyev, the Court is not persuaded that the investigating authorities" conduct, albeit negligent to the extent that it has breached Article 2 in its procedural aspect, could have in itself caused the applicant mental distress in excess of the minimum level of severity which is necessary in order to consider treatment as falling within the scope of Article 3 (see, for a similar situation, Khumaydov and Khumaydov v. Russia, no. 13862/05, §§ 130-31, 28 May 2009, and Zakriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 20583/04, §§ 97-98, 8 January 2009).
  • EGMR, 15.11.2007 - 6846/02

    KHAMILA ISAYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    The Court notes that it has already found violations of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of relatives of missing persons in a series of cases concerning the phenomenon of "disappearances" in the Chechen Republic (see, for example, Luluyev and Others, cited above, §§ 117-18; Khamila Isayeva v. Russia, no. 6846/02, §§ 143-45, 15 November 2007; and Kukayev v. Russia, no. 29361/02, §§ 10710, 15 November 2007).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
    Auszug aus EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 49379/09
    In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324, and Avsar, cited above, § 391).
  • EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

    LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  • EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00

    ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

    AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01

    TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  • EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

    AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  • EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

    BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
  • EGMR, 10.01.2008 - 67797/01

    ZUBAYRAYEV v. RUSSIA

  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

    [ENG]

    Conversely, where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof could not be reversed (see, for example, Tovsultanova v. Russia, no. 26974/06, §§ 77-81, 17 June 2010; Movsayevy v. Russia, no. 20303/07, § 76, 14 June 2011; and Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 71, 3 May 2012).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07

    [ENG]

    Conversely, where applicants fail to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof cannot be reversed (see, for example, Tovsultanova v. Russia, no. 26974/06, §§ 77-81, 17 June 2010; Movsayevy v. Russia, no. 20303/07, § 76, 14 June 2011; and Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 71, 3 May 2012).
  • EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 61536/08

    [ENG]

    Conversely, where applicants fail to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof cannot be reversed (see, for example, Tovsultanova v. Russia, no. 26974/06, §§ 77-81, 17 June 2010; Movsayevy v. Russia, no. 20303/07, § 76, 14 June 2011; and Shafiyeva v. Russia, no. 49379/09, § 71, 3 May 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht