Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  AKELIENE v. LITHUANIA

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  AKELIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (16)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 26565/05

  N. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  Its use extends to uncertainty regarding past facts (see my separate opinions in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, § 19, ECHR 2015, and Sõro v. Estonia, no. 22588/08, § 19) and future facts (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 22, 21 June 2016; Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 17, 24 May 2016; and S.J. v. Belgium (Striking out) [GC], no. 70055/10, § 9, 19 March 2015, referring to the argumentation in N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating suspicious deaths may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 50, 3 March 2011, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 237, ECHR 2016), and to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others, § 27, and Mustafayev, § 73, both cited above).
• EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 76136/12

  RAMADAN v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  Its use extends to uncertainty regarding past facts (see my separate opinions in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, § 19, ECHR 2015, and Sõro v. Estonia, no. 22588/08, § 19) and future facts (see Ramadan v. Malta, no. 76136/12, § 22, 21 June 2016; Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, § 17, 24 May 2016; and S.J. v. Belgium (Striking out) [GC], no. 70055/10, § 9, 19 March 2015, referring to the argumentation in N. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 26565/05, ECHR 2008).

• EGMR, 16.11.2017 - 72126/14

  CEESAY v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  An investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, more recently, Ranđelović and Others v. Montenegro, no. 66641/10, § 123, 19 September 2017, and Ceesay v. Austria, no. 72126/14, § 88, 16 November 2017).
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 47095/09

  MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  In all cases, the next of kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to such an extent as is necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see Mustafayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 47095/09, § 72, 4 May 2017, with further references).
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  Under these circumstances, taking into account the information available, the Court does not consider that the measures taken by the State with the aim of finding A.G. after his conviction and having him extradited to Lithuania were insufficient as regards its responsibility to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see, mutatis mutandis, Ghimp and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32520/09, § 43, 30 October 2012, and Banel v. Lithuania, no. 14326/11, § 70, 18 June 2013).
• EGMR, 03.03.2011 - 21454/04

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  However, a prompt response by the authorities in investigating suspicious deaths may generally be regarded as essential in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in or tolerance of unlawful acts (see Merkulova v. Ukraine, no. 21454/04, § 50, 3 March 2011, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 237, ECHR 2016), and to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others, § 27, and Mustafayev, § 73, both cited above).
• EGMR, 13.09.2016 - 47384/11

  IMREN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Sıdıka İmren v. Turkey, no. 47384/11, § 59, 13 September 2016).
• EGMR, 29.09.2015 - 61946/12

  ZOLTAI v. HUNGARY AND IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  Accordingly, so far the Court is of the view that the authorities of the respondent State fulfilled the procedural obligations arising under Article 2 with respect to the criminal proceedings (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others, cited above, § 28, and Zoltai v. Hungary and Ireland (dec.), no. 61946/12, § 30, 29 September 2015).
• EGMR, 07.02.2017 - 45870/12

  MINNEKER ET ENGRAND c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 16.10.2018 - 54917/13

  It is so since the enforcement of a sentence imposed in the context of the right to life must be regarded as an integral part of the procedural obligation of the State under this Article (see Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others, cited above, § 32, and, most recently, Minneker and Engrand v. Belgium (dec.), no. 45870/12, § 26, 7 February 2017).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 31566/13

  TAVARES DE ALMEIDA FERNANDES AND ALMEIDA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL
• EGMR, 16.10.2014 - 8307/11

  GÖTHLIN v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 960/13

  KOSTECKAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 26.10.2017 - 2539/13

  CIRINO v. ITALY and 1 other application

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 04.08.2020 - 48756/14

  TERSHANA v. ALBANIA

  The civil remedies relied on by the Government cannot be regarded as sufficient for the fulfilment of a Contracting State's obligations under Article 2 of the Convention in cases such as the present one, because their aim is to obtain an award of damages rather than to prevent, suppress and punish breaches of such provisions (see Akelienė v. Lithuania, no. 54917/13, § 69, 16 October 2018).
• EGMR, 13.04.2021 - 37882/13

  E.G. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  En effet, l'exécution de la condamnation imposée dans le contexte du droit à la vie doit être regardée comme faisant partie intégrante de l'obligation procédurale pesant à charge de l'État en vertu de cette disposition (Kitanovska Stanojkovic et autres c. l'ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine, no 2319/14, § 32, 13 octobre 2016, Akelienė c. Lithuanie, no 54917/13, § 85, 16 octobre 2018, et Makuchyan et Minasyan c. Azerbaïdjan et Hongrie, no 17247/13, § 50, 26 mai 2020).
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 33567/15

  JESTCOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates that the enforcement of a sentence imposed in the context of the right to life must be regarded as an integral part of the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 (see, mutatis mutandis, Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2319/14, §§ 32-33, 13 October 2016; Akelienė v. Lithuania, no. 54917/13, § 85, 16 October 2018; Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, § 50, 26 May 2020).

• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 10544/17

  TUMÄ-NIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA

  In such circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant fully exhausted the avenues of redress available to her under the criminal law and that she was not required to institute separate civil proceedings (see Semache v. France, no. 36083/16, § 54, 21 June 2018, and Akelienė v. Lithuania, no. 54917/13, § 68, 16 October 2018).
• EGMR - 18748/24 (anhängig)

  KJERIMI AND OTHERS v. NORTH MACEDONIA

  (b) was the procedural response of the domestic authorities to the deaths compliant with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention? Did the alleged failure of the authorities to enforce the sentence imposed on D.A. amount to a violation of Article 2 (see, in the context of intentional infringement of the right to life, Akelienė v. Lithuania, no. 54917/13, §§ 82-93, 16 October 2018, and Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2319/14, §§ 26-32, 13 October 2016; see also Minneker and Engrand v. Belgium (dec.), no. 45870/12, §§ 26-33, 7 February 2017)? Were the investigation and the ensuing criminal proceedings against S.D., F.V. and V.Kj. prompt (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, cited above, §§ 218-19; Kotelnikov v. Russia, no. 45104/05, §§ 105-06, 12 July 2016; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no 23302/03, § 76, 24 May 2011; Oyal v. Turkey, no. 4864/05, § 76, 23 March 2010)?.
• EGMR, 20.01.2026 - 13702/18

  ONISHCHENKO c. GRÈCE

  Rn. 30 Enforcement of a sentence imposed in the context of the protection of the right to life must be regarded as an integral part of the procedural obligation of the State under Article 2 (see Akelienė v. Lithuania, no. 54917/13, § 85, 16 October 2018, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 68490/14

  NATALIA LUNGU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  La Cour juge que ces manquements des autorités moldaves à faire exécuter les peines de A.C. et N.G. n'étaient pas conformes aux obligations positives incombant à l'État défendeur en vertu de l'article 2 de la Convention (comparer avec Jestcov c. République de Moldova et Russie [comité], no 33567/15, § 32, 28 septembre 2021, et voir, a contrario, Akeliene c. Lithuanie, no 54917/13, §§ 91-93, 16 octobre 2018).
• EGMR - 76360/17 (anhängig)

  POGHOSYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA AND RUSSIA

  Having regard to the State's procedural obligation to conduct an effective investigation and to enforce a sentence imposed in the context of the right to life (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no. 24014/05, § 171, 14 April 2015; Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 2319/14, § 32, 13 October 2016; and Akelienė v Lithuania, no. 54917/13, § 85, 16 October 2018), has there been a breach of Article 2 of the Convention, as alleged by the first and second applicants?.