Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TANGIYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 2, Art. 3, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38, Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Art. 13+2 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Failure to comply with Art. 38-1-a No separate issue under Art. 34 Violation of Art. 2 (failure to conduct an effective investigation) Violation of Art. 2 (killing of 3 members of the ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 57935/00
• EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 25657/94

  AVSAR c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  As to the facts in dispute, the Court recalls its jurisprudence confirming the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in its assessment of evidence (see Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 282, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).

  In the light of the importance of the protection provided by Article 2 of the Convention, the Court must subject deprivations 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, Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, judgment of 10 July 2001, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII).

• EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94

  TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  A failure on a Government's part to submit such information which is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may not only give rise to the drawing of inferences as to the well-foundedness of the applicant's allegations, but may also reflect negatively on the level of compliance by a respondent State with its obligations under Article 38 § 1 (a) of the Convention (see Timurtas v. Turkey, no. 23531/94, §§ 66 and 70, ECHR 2000-VI, and Tanis and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII).
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  It does not appear that the prosecutors, who bore the primary responsibility, ever made appropriate orders or tried otherwise to pursue the matter (see, mutatis mutandis, Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 152, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).

 
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  The passage of time will inevitably erode the amount and quality of the evidence available and the appearance of a lack of diligence will cast doubt on the good faith of the investigative efforts, as well as drag out the ordeal for the members of the family (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if it fails in its arguments, issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005; Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives" accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

  IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation to costs and expenses are to be paid directly into the applicant's representatives" accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu, cited above, § 158; Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 175, ECHR 2005-VII; and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-...).
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2007 - 57935/00

  Nonetheless, where allegations are made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention the Court must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny (see, mutatis mutandis, the judgments in Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, p.24, § 32; and Avsar, cited above, § 283) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place.

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 28761/11

  Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis

  Although the structure of the Court's judgments traditionally reflects the numbering of the Articles of the Convention, it has also been customary for the Court to examine the Government's compliance with their procedural obligation under Article 38 of the Convention at the outset, especially if negative inferences are to be drawn from the Government's failure to submit the requested evidence (see, among other cases, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 209, ECHR 2013-...; Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 134-140, 8 January 2009; Utsayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 29133/03, §§ 149-153, 29 May 2008; Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, §§ 74-77, 10 January 2008; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, §§ 73-77, 29 November 2007; see also paragraph 390 below).
• EGMR, 21.10.2013 - 55508/07

  Massaker von Katyn

  On the first element, the state of uncertainty, the Government observed that, although the fate of the applicants" relatives could not be established with the certainty required for the purposes of criminal or "rehabilitation" proceedings, it was not reasonable to expect that they would still have been alive by 5 May 1998, taking into account their dates of birth and the absence of any news from them since World War II. In the absence of the first element, the Russian Government considered that no separate issues could arise under Article 3 beyond those already examined under Article 2 (here they referred to Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, § 189, 29 March 2011; Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

  In a series of Chechen cases in which the applicants had not witnessed the killing of their relatives but had found out about their deaths only on discovery of their bodies, the Court considered that no separate finding of a violation of Article 3 was necessary, given that it had already found a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in its substantive and procedural aspects (see Velkhiyev and Others v. Russia, no. 34085/06, § 137, 5 July 2011; Sambiyev and Pokayeva v. Russia, no. 38693/04, §§ 74-75, 22 January 2009; and Tangiyeva. Russia, no. 57935/00, § 104, 29 November 2007).

• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7511/13

  Polen zahlt Schmerzensgeld für Haft in CIA-Gefängnis

  Although the structure of the Court's judgments traditionally reflects the numbering of the Articles of the Convention, it has also been customary for the Court to examine the Government's compliance with their procedural obligation under Article 38 of the Convention at the outset, especially if negative inferences are likely to be drawn from the Government's failure to submit the requested evidence (see, among other cases, Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 209, ECHR 2013-...; Shakhgiriyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27251/03, §§ 134-140, 8 January 2009; Utsayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 29133/03, §§ 149-153, 29 May 2008; Zubayrayev v. Russia, no. 67797/01, §§ 74-77, 10 January 2008; and Tangiyeva v. Russia, no. 57935/00, §§ 73-77, 29 November 2007).