Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GONCHARUK v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 13 MRK
  Violation of Art. 2 Violation of Art. 13 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 18.05.2006 - 58643/00
• EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  Indeed, in such situations the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities (see, inter alia, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).

  In the context of the questioning of applicants about their applications under the Convention by authorities exercising a domestic investigative function, this will depend on whether the procedures adopted have involved a form of illicit and unacceptable pressure which may be regarded as hindering the exercise of the right of individual application (see, for example, Aydin v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 115-117, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 130, ECHR 2000-VII).

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  Thus, it has found that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  It must then examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected to exhaust domestic remedies (see, among many authorities, Ä°lhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 59, ECHR 2000-VII).

 
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  Such a parallel is based on the salient fact that in both situations the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities (see Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation of costs and expenses are to be paid directly to the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 158, 31 May 2005; 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, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  Furthermore, the Court notes that it is its standard practice to rule that awards in relation of costs and expenses are to be paid directly to the applicant's representatives' accounts (see, for example, ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 158, 31 May 2005; 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, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  Thus, it has found that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  Thus, it has found that where an individual is taken into custody in good health but is found to be injured at the time of release, it is incumbent on the State to provide a plausible explanation of how those injuries were caused, failing which an issue will arise under Article 3 of the Convention (see Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, pp. 40-41, §§ 108-111; Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, pp. 25-26, § 34; and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 27.04.1988 - 9659/82

  BOYLE AND RICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 58643/00

  In view of the Court's findings above with regard to Article 2, these complaints are clearly "arguable" for the purposes of Article 13 (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, § 52).

• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 18545/04

  DIBIROVA v. RUSSIA

  The Court has to examine whether the situation at hand at all falls within the ambit of Article 2. It reiterates that Article 2 protects the right to life in situations where potentially lethal force is employed, notwithstanding the fact that as a result of subsequent medical interventions the applicant's life has been saved (see Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, § 174, 24 February 2005; and Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, § 74, 4 October 2007).