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

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12, 869/12, 7215/12, 52498/12, 77701/12, 79938/12, 1969/13, 73593/13, 63000/14, 70438/14   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2019,14650
EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12, 869/12, 7215/12, 52498/12, 77701/12, 79938/12, 1969/13, 73593/13, 63000/14, 70438/14 (https://dejure.org/2019,14650)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04.06.2019 - 867/12, 869/12, 7215/12, 52498/12, 77701/12, 79938/12, 1969/13, 73593/13, 63000/14, 70438/14 (https://dejure.org/2019,14650)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 04. Juni 2019 - 867/12, 869/12, 7215/12, 52498/12, 77701/12, 79938/12, 1969/13, 73593/13, 63000/14, 70438/14 (https://dejure.org/2019,14650)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2019,14650) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    ABUBAKAROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    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);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) ...

 
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 ... (7)Zitiert selbst (31)

  • EGMR - 63000/14 (anhängig)

    MEZHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12
    Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14).

    In Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) the Government submitted that the applicants had become aware of the ineffectiveness of the proceedings in 2012, when they had unsuccessfully challenged in court the investigators' failure to take basic steps.

    The most significant ones which occurred prior to the lodging of the respective applications with the Court were as follows: around seven years and one month in Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) (see paragraph 210 above and the appended table); around six years and nine months in Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12) (see paragraphs 83 and 88 above); around six years and eight months in Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12) (see paragraphs 124 and 128 above); around five years and two months in Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) (see paragraph 163 above); around four years and eleven months in Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) (see paragraph 109 above and the appended table); around four years and two months in Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) (see paragraph 144 above); around three years and eight months in Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12) (see paragraph 67 above); up to three years and seven months in Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12) (see paragraphs 37 and 40 above); around three years and two months in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12) (see paragraph 23 above); and around two years and six months in Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) (see paragraph 186 above).

    In the cases of Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) the applicants' relatives were abducted by armed men from various public places (see paragraphs 95 and 176 above).

    In Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13), Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the abductors' vehicles were seen entering or exiting premises belonging to the State authorities (see paragraphs 30, 149, 155, 181 and 198 above).

    In Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) the applicants obtained and then submitted to the investigating authority a video recording showing their missing relative in custody at the Grozny ROVD (see paragraph 183 above).

    In the cases of Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants' complaints of abductions, which had to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention.

    In the cases of Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the Government submitted that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective.

    The applicants in the cases of Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.

    It finds that the applicants in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14), who are close relatives of the abducted men, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish that they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.

    Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision in the cases of Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14).

    In the light of the above, and taking into account the scope of the applicants' complaints, the Court finds that the applicants in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

    As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in the cases of Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14), the Court notes that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention, absorb its requirements.

    The applicants in Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) based their calculations on the amount of the minimum salary in Russia and its expected growth in future.

    In Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) the Government stated that the applicants had not proved that their missing relatives had been the breadwinners, but even if that had been the case, it remained open to them to apply for welfare benefits for the loss of the family breadwinner.

    In Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) the Government stated that the applicants' claim was excessive and did not correspond to the amount of compensation usually awarded by the Court.

    In Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) the Government stated that the amounts claimed were excessive.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) on account of their mental suffering caused by their relatives' disappearance and the authorities' response to their suffering;.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants' relatives in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) on account of their unlawful detention;.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14);.

    Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14);.

    63000/14.

  • EGMR - 73593/13 (anhängig)

    RESHIDOVY v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12
    Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13).

    The most significant ones which occurred prior to the lodging of the respective applications with the Court were as follows: around seven years and one month in Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) (see paragraph 210 above and the appended table); around six years and nine months in Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12) (see paragraphs 83 and 88 above); around six years and eight months in Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12) (see paragraphs 124 and 128 above); around five years and two months in Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) (see paragraph 163 above); around four years and eleven months in Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) (see paragraph 109 above and the appended table); around four years and two months in Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) (see paragraph 144 above); around three years and eight months in Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12) (see paragraph 67 above); up to three years and seven months in Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12) (see paragraphs 37 and 40 above); around three years and two months in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12) (see paragraph 23 above); and around two years and six months in Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) (see paragraph 186 above).

    Lastly, in Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) one of the brothers was abducted from a flat, and the exact place of the second brother's abduction is unclear.

    In Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) and Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) the abductors used APCs; and in Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12) and Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) they arrived in other military vehicles - UAZ minivans and/or Ural lorries (see paragraphs 9, 28, 29, 52-54, 77, 95, 115 and 148 above).

    In Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13), Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the abductors' vehicles were seen entering or exiting premises belonging to the State authorities (see paragraphs 30, 149, 155, 181 and 198 above).

    Furthermore, in Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12) and Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) the authorities acknowledged that special operations had been conducted at the time (see paragraphs 63, 70 162 and 165 above).

    The applicants in all cases except for Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives.

    The applicants in the cases of Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.

    Accordingly, there has been a violation of that provision in the cases of Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14).

    In the light of the above, and taking into account the scope of the applicants' complaints, the Court finds that the applicants in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

    As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in the cases of Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14), the Court notes that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention, absorb its requirements.

    The applicants in Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) referred to the yearly support which they allegedly received from their missing relatives in the amount of EUR 2, 000.

    In Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) the Government stated that the applicants had not proved that their missing relatives had been the breadwinners, but even if that had been the case, it remained open to them to apply for welfare benefits for the loss of the family breadwinner.

    All of them, save for the applicants in Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13), asked for the awards to be transferred into the bank accounts of their representatives.

    The awards in respect of costs and expenses in respect of all cases save for Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) are to be paid into the representatives' bank accounts, as indicated by the applicants.

    In Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) the award is to be paid into the bank account indicated by the applicants.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the applicants' relatives in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) on account of their unlawful detention;.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention in respect of Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14);.

    Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14);.

    The awards in respect of costs and expenses in all cases except for Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) are to be paid into the representatives' bank accounts as indicated by the applicants.

    In Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) the award is to be paid into the bank account indicated by the applicants;.

    73593/13.

  • EGMR - 70438/14 (anhängig)

    TASHUYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 867/12
    Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14).

    Date of application no. 70438/14.

    In Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the Government questioned the date on which the application had been lodged and the applicant's compliance with the rules of the Practice Direction on Institution of Proceedings on account of the belated submission of the power of attorney by the applicant's representative.

    Considering the above, as well as the nature of the alleged violation and the absence of a final domestic decision triggering the six-month time-limit (see paragraph 239 below), the Court finds that the Government's objection concerning the date of the application and the calculation of the six-month time-limit in Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) should be dismissed.

    It further notes that in each application save for Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the applicants informed the authorities about the abductions of their relatives within two days of the incidents (see paragraphs 12, 55, 78, 97, 117, 134, 150 and 178 above).

    In Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) they did so within ten and eighteen days respectively, which does not seem unreasonable or seriously damaging to the prospects of the ensuing investigation (see paragraphs 32-33 and 200 above).

    The most significant ones which occurred prior to the lodging of the respective applications with the Court were as follows: around seven years and one month in Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) (see paragraph 210 above and the appended table); around six years and nine months in Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12) (see paragraphs 83 and 88 above); around six years and eight months in Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12) (see paragraphs 124 and 128 above); around five years and two months in Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) (see paragraph 163 above); around four years and eleven months in Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) (see paragraph 109 above and the appended table); around four years and two months in Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) (see paragraph 144 above); around three years and eight months in Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12) (see paragraph 67 above); up to three years and seven months in Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12) (see paragraphs 37 and 40 above); around three years and two months in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12) (see paragraph 23 above); and around two years and six months in Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) (see paragraph 186 above).

    In the cases of Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Dzhambulatova v. Russia (no. 52498/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the applicants' relatives were abducted from their homes by armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms (see paragraphs 9, 28, 50, 53, 54, 77, 115, 132, and 198 above).

    Thus, according to witness evidence in Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14), the abductors presented themselves as police officers (see paragraph 201 above).

    In Magaziyev and Others v. Russia (no. 869/12), Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13), Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the abductors' vehicles were seen entering or exiting premises belonging to the State authorities (see paragraphs 30, 149, 155, 181 and 198 above).

    In Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) some of the abductors, or all of them, spoke unaccented Russian.

    Moreover, in Abubakarova v. Russia (no. 867/12), Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) they were also of Slavic appearance (see paragraphs 9, 51, 95, 115, 132 and 197 above).

    In Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the investigators clearly stated that abduction by State agents was the most probable version of events (see paragraph 207 above).

    In the cases of Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Pashayeva v. Russia (no. 79938/12), Khamzatovy v. Russia (no. 1969/13), Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants' complaints of abductions, which had to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention.

    In the cases of Edilsultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 7215/12), Mezhiyev and Others v. Russia (no. 63000/14) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) the Government submitted that the mere fact that the investigations had not produced any specific results, or had produced only limited ones, did not mean that they had been ineffective.

    The applicants in all cases except for Reshidovy v. Russia (no. 73593/13) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) complained of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the mental suffering caused by the disappearance of their relatives.

    The applicants in all cases except for Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) also complained of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the unlawfulness of their relatives' detention.

    The applicants in all of the cases except for Golbatsova v. Russia (no. 77701/12) and Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) claimed compensation for loss of financial support from their family breadwinners.

    All of the applicants save for those in Tashuyeva v. Russia (no. 70438/14) claimed compensation for costs and expenses.

    70438/14.

  • EGMR - 65054/11 (anhängig)

    DZHANKHOTOVA AND DZHANKHOTOV v. RUSSIA and 9 other applications

    Application no. 867/12 Abubakarova v. Russia}}.

    867/12.

  • EGMR, 31.03.2020 - 51933/08

    MURDALOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 2 othe applications

    Furthermore, the Court considers that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3 in respect of the moral suffering caused to them by their close relative's disappearance, in breach of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention (see Sultygov and Others v. Russia, nos. 42575/07 and 11 others, § 470, 9 October 2014, and Abubakarova and Others v. Russia, nos. 867/12 and 9 others, §§ 275 and 278, 4 June 2019).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44658/12

    VATSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    In the light of the above principle, and bearing in mind the sums awarded in similar cases (see, for a recent example, Abubakarova and Others v. Russia [CTE], no. 867/12 and 9 others, 4 June 2019), the Court awards the applicants EUR 80, 000 jointly in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on that amount.
  • EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 19/16

    IDRISOVA v. RUSSIA

    In the light of the above principle, and bearing in mind the sums awarded in similar cases (see for a recent example Abubakarova and Others v. Russia [CTE], no. 867/12 and 9 others, 4 June 2019), the Court awards the applicant EUR 80, 000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to her on that amount.
  • EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51119/15

    GADAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court's opinion is strengthened by the fact that the perpetrators were in civilian clothes and in civilian vehicles (see paragraph 8 above) (see Ibragim Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 18011/12, § 58, 21 June 2016, where the abductors were in civilian clothes; contrast Abubakarova and Others v. Russia [CTE], no. 867/12 and 9 others, §§ 9, 10, 28, 77, 116, 132 and 151, 4 July 2019; Khamkhoyeva and Others v. Russia [CTE], no. 6636/09 and 9 others, § 124, 28 May 2019; and Isayeva and Others v. Russia [CTE], no. 53075/08 and 9 others, §§ 81, 127, 183, 198 and 212, 28 May 2019, where the abductors were in camouflage uniforms and used military vehicles).
  • OVG Saarland, 14.06.2022 - 6 A 850/20

    Nichtzulassung der Berufung aus dem Grund das Gericht habe seine Ausführungen zur …

    Dieser Sachverhalt sei gerichtlich bestätigt durch das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte ( EGMR ) vom 4. Juni 2019 (Appl. 867/12, veröffentlicht unter https://hudoc.echr.coe.int), mit dem der Mutter des Klägers wegen der Entführung eine Entschädigung von 80.000 EUR zugesprochen worden ist.
  • OVG Sachsen, 14.06.2022 - 6 A 850/20

    Asyl, ; Tschetschenien; Verletzung rechtlichen Gehörs; grundsätzliche Bedeutung

    Dieser Sachverhalt sei gerichtlich bestätigt durch das Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) vom 4. Juni 2019 (Appl. 867/12, veröffentlicht unter https://hudoc.echr.coe.int), mit dem der Mutter des Klägers wegen der Entführung eine Entschädigung von 80.000 EUR zugesprochen worden ist.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR - 35816/10, 52431/10, 56569/11, 869/12, 2660/12, 2671/12, 2674/12, 52498/12, 65488/12, 24711/13, 24725/13   

Anhängiges Verfahren
Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/9999,81876
EGMR - 35816/10, 52431/10, 56569/11, 869/12, 2660/12, 2671/12, 2674/12, 52498/12, 65488/12, 24711/13, 24725/13 (https://dejure.org/9999,81876)
EGMR - 35816/10, Entscheidung vom 52431/10, 56569/11, 869/12, 2660/12, 2671/12, 2674/12, 52498/12, 65488/12, 24711/13, 24725/13 (https://dejure.org/9999,81876)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/9999,81876) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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 ...Zitiert selbst (8)

  • EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 2660/12

    ESAMBAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    Application no. 2660/12 Esambayeva v. Russia}}.

    2660/12.

  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    (d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearances of the applicants' missing relatives sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?.
  • EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    - the Court's numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 were found in respect of both disappearances of the applicants' relatives as a result of detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos.
  • KAGH, 07.06.2013 - M 22/12

    Zustimmung der MAV beim Einsatz von Dienstleistungskräften (Anästhesieteam) - zum …

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    22/12/2011.
  • KAG Freiburg, 04.04.2008 - 10/07

    Unterlassungsanspruch bezüglich der Anwendung einer Dienstvereinbarung über eine …

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    10/07/2012.
  • EGMR, 13.09.2011 - 22/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    22/08/2011.
  • EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 61536/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014), and;.
  • EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51534/08

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR - 35816/10
    51534/08, 4401/10, 25518/10, 28779/10, 33175/10, 47393/10, 54753/10, 58131/10, 62207/10 and 73784/10, §§ 311-12, 314, 10 October 2013)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.
  • EGMR, 22.01.2019 - 36962/09

    TAZUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10).

    As regards the case of Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) the Government questioned whether the applicant had lodged any complaints with the domestic authorities before 2010.

    In the case of Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) the applicant stated that Mr Anzor Tangiyev's mother had contacted the authorities immediately after the abduction of her son but that no criminal case had been opened, despite her and his efforts, until he had lodged his complaint in 2010.

    Even though in Soltagirayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43724/09) and Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) the applicants delayed lodging their formal complaints about the abductions of their relatives, the Government did not dispute that in those cases the investigative authorities had become aware of the incidents shortly thereafter (see paragraphs 46 and 73 above).

    In Tazuyeva v. Russia (no. 36962/09), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Tsakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 54733/10) the investigators suspended the proceedings for periods which did not exceed four and half years.

    It considers that the absence of important information concerning the applicants' conduct during the lulls in the proceedings in Tsakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 54733/10), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Tazuyeva v. Russia (no. 36962/09) cannot be held against the applicants, given that it resulted from the Government's failure to submit copies of the relevant investigation files.

    The Government's argument that in Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) the applicant did not show due interest in the investigation is rebutted by the numerous complaints that he lodged with the authorities and his unsuccessful application for victim status in the criminal case (see paragraphs 74 and 81 above).

    The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities or to raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigation, and to claim compensation for pecuniary damage, but that the applicants in Soltagirayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43724/09), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Tsakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 54733/10) had failed to do so.

    In Tazuyeva v. Russia (no. 36962/09), Soltagirayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43724/09), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Movsarova and Others v. Russia (no. 34256/11) they used other forms of military transport - UAZ vehicles or Ural lorries (see paragraphs 9, 45, 71, and 152 above).

    In Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Osmayevy v. Russia (no. 29826/11), persons apprehended and detained together with the applicants' relatives stated that Mr Anzor Tangiyev had been kept on the premises of the Khankala military base, and that Mr Olkhazur Osmayev had been kept in the Shali district commander's office and then at the Shali ROVD.

    In Kulishova v. Russia (no. 37430/09), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Tsakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 54733/10) the Government submitted that the complaints should be dismissed because the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations of enforced disappearances perpetrated by State servicemen.

    The Court notes that despite its request, the Government failed to submit copies of the investigation files, as requested in Tsakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 54733/10), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Tazuyeva v. Russia (no. 36962/09) (see paragraphs 20, 76 and 94 above).

    Given the above findings regarding the State's responsibility for the abductions of the applicants' relatives and the failure to carry out meaningful investigations into the incidents (see paragraphs 253-257 above), the Court finds that the applicants in Soltagirayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43724/09), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10), Tsakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 54733/10), Bachakovy v. Russia (no. 24748/11), Osmayevy v. Russia (no. 29826/11), Movsarova and Others v. Russia (no. 34256/11), Moltayevy v. Russia (no. 42835/11) and Bashkuyeva and Arsayeva v. Russia (no. 4887/14), who are close relatives of the relevant abducted men, must be considered victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the distress and anguish that they suffered, and continue to suffer, as a result of their inability to ascertain the fate of their missing family members and of the manner in which their complaints have been dealt with.

    The applicants in all of the cases, except for Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) and Bashkuyeva and Arsayeva v. Russia (no. 4887/14), claimed compensation for the loss of financial support from their respective family breadwinner.

    In Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) the applicant claimed EUR 250, 000.

    In Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) the applicant claimed EUR 1, 770 for legal costs and administrative and postal expenses.

    Having regard to the conclusions and principles set out above, as well as the parties' submissions, and the fact that the applicant in Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10) has benefited from legal aid in the amount of EUR 850, the Court awards the amounts specified in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them on those amounts.

    Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicants in Soltagirayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 43724/09), Tangiyev v. Russia (no. 35816/10), Tsakayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 54733/10), Bachakovy v. Russia (no. 24748/11), Osmayevy v. Russia (no. 29826/11), Movsarova and Others v. Russia (no. 34256/11), Moltayevy v. Russia (no. 42835/11) and Bashkuyeva and Arsayeva v. Russia (no. 4887/14) on account of the mental suffering caused to them by their relatives' disappearance and the authorities' response to their suffering;.

    35816/10.

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