Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CHITAYEV v. RUSSIA

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 38... , Art. 38 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 41, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 Abs. 1, Art. 5) MRK
  Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (Art. 8 and P1-1) Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) (Art. 3 and 5) Violations of Art. 3 Violation of Art. 5 Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 5-1-c ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 59334/00
• EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

Wird zitiert von ... (20)Zitiert selbst (21)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  This investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Assenov and Others, judgment of 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII, p. 3290, § 102, and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  According to the Court's established case-law, arrested or detained persons are entitled to a review bearing upon the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the "lawfulness", in the sense of the Convention, of their deprivation of liberty (see Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).

• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57947/00

  ISSAIEVA, YOUSSOUPOVA ET BAZAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-213, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 20.02.2003 - 50272/99

  HUTCHISON REID v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  An entitlement to a review arises both at the time of the initial deprivation of liberty and, where new issues of lawfulness are capable of arising, periodically thereafter (see Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 66, ECHR 2003-IV).
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  The Court has previously had before it cases in which it has found that there has been treatment which could only be described as torture (see Aksoy, cited above, p. 2279, § 64; Aydın, cited above, pp. 1891-92, §§ 83-84 and 86; Selmouni, cited above, § 105; Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, §§ 94-96, ECHR 2000-VIII; and, among recent authorities, Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 08.11.2005 - 6847/02

  KHOUDOÏOROV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  The Court must in addition be satisfied that detention during the period under consideration was compatible with the purpose of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see, among other authorities, Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, § 124, 8 November 2005).
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  While the civil courts have the capacity to make an independent assessment of fact, in practice the weight attached to preliminary criminal enquiries is so important that even the most convincing evidence to the contrary furnished by a plaintiff would often be dismissed as "irrelevant" (see Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 76, 9 March 2006).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  The minimum standards as to effectiveness defined by the Court's case-law also include the requirements that the investigation must be independent, impartial and subject to public scrutiny, and that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness (see, for example, Isayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, §§ 208-213, 24 February 2005).
• EGMR, 07.02.2008 - 55861/00

  SVETOSLAV DIMITROV v. BULGARIA
• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28779/95

  CUMBER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Einstufung des in französischer Haft zugefügten Übels als Folter - Verpflichtung …
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 07.10.2005 - 18/04
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  [ENG]

  The facts of acts of particular seriousness, such as extrajudicial executions, mass murders, tortures, enforced disappearances, or similar, committed by representatives of Russia's armed and security forces during the armed conflict in the Chechen Republic have been established by the Court in a significant number of cases which have been brought to its attention and where violations of various Convention provisions have been found (see, for instance, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005; Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, 12 October 2006; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, 18 January 2007; Goncharuk v. Russia, no. 58643/00, 4 October 2007; Sadykov v. Russia, no. 41840/02, 7 October 2010; Khatsiyeva and Others, cited above; Akhmadov and Others, cited above; Esmukhambetov and Others v. Russia, no. 23445/03, 29 March 2011).
• EGMR, 08.10.2015 - 38887/09

  [ENG]

  In view of its findings of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicant's unrecorded detention, the Court considers that no separate issue arises in respect of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in the circumstances of the present case (see, for example, Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, §§ 173 and 204, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 32501/11

  [ENG]

  These cases concerned ineffective investigations which had been protracted for a number of years (see, among many others, Medov v. Russia, no. 1573/02, § 122, 8 November 2007; Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 166, 18 January 2007; and Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, § 123, 5 February 2009).

• EGMR, 27.05.2010 - 16622/05

  [ENG]

  The official bodies denied that those who had intruded into the applicants' home and abducted their relatives were State agents (see, by contrast, Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, §§ 64, 77 and 143, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 18274/04

  BORZHONOV v. RUSSIA

  In the Court's view, in the absence of a copy of the procedural orders, the applicant would not have a realistic opportunity effectively to challenge them (see Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, §§ 139 and 140, 18 January 2007, and Khamila Isayeva v. Russia, no. 6846/02, §§ 101 and 133, 15 November 2007).
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 43611/02

  BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE

  In view of the above finding and the fact that the Government submitted no explanation regarding the applicant's detention between 3 and 4 November 2000 and his subsequent transfer to Moscow, nor any documents by way of justification, the Court concludes that during that period the applicant was held in unacknowledged detention and transferred to Russia in complete disregard of the safeguards enshrined in Article 5, and that this constitutes a particularly grave violation of his right to liberty and security as secured by Article 5 of the Convention (see Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 173, 18 January 2007; Gisayev v. Russia, no. 14811/04, §§ 152-53, 20 January 2011; and Kadirova and Others, cited above, §§ 127-30).
• EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 35/10

  ZARMAYEV c. BELGIQUE

  Partant, l'affaire devait être distinguée des arrêts que la Cour avait rendus dans des affaires directement liées à des faits qui s'étaient déroulés durant la deuxième guerre de Tchétchénie (Chamaïev et autres c. Géorgie et Russie, no 36378/02, CEDH 2005-III, et Chitaïev c. Russie, no 59334/00, 18 janvier 2007).
• EGMR, 24.09.2009 - 33944/05

  [ENG]

  The official bodies denied that those who had intruded into the applicants' home and abducted Ramzan Babushev were State agents (see, by contrast, Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, §§ 64, 77 and 143, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 29.05.2008 - 37315/03

  BETAYEV AND BETAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  In the absence of any domestic findings of State responsibility for the allegedly unlawful search, the Court is not persuaded that the court remedy referred to by the Government was accessible to the applicants and would have had any prospects of success (see, by contrast, Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 143, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 43368/04

  ISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  However, in circumstances where, as here, the criminal investigation into suspicious deaths was ineffective in that it lacked sufficient objectivity and thoroughness, and where the effectiveness of any other remedy that may have existed, including the civil remedies suggested by the Government, was consequently undermined, the Court finds that the State has failed in its obligation under Article 13 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, § 185, 24 February 2005; Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 202, 18 January 2007, and Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, § 76, ECHR 2006-III).
• EGMR, 16.07.2009 - 29851/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 08.11.2007 - 1573/02

  MEDOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.10.2010 - 41840/02

  SADYKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 14811/04

  Russland wegen brutaler Folter verurteilt
• EGMR, 03.11.2015 - 46413/10

  MIĶELSONS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 3896/04

  RYABOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2019 - 43852/12

  BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 41840/02

  SADYKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 50973/06

  DEMIRBAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.06.2007 - 52697/99

  MIKADZÉ c. RUSSIE