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 ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (14)

• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  Otherwise, torture or ill-treatment may be presumed in favour of the claimant and an issue may 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, and Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 87, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

  WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  It marks out the temporal limits of the supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
• 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, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.01.2007 - 59334/00

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as lying with the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see Ribitsch v. Austria, judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A no. 336, § 34, and Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000-VII).
• 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. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la 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. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 116, ECHR 2004-IV (extracts)).
• 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, 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, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  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. 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, 24.02.2005 - 57948/00
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  KLAAS c. ALLEMAGNE
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

• EGMR, 13.12.2012 - 39630/09

  El Masri klagt gegen Mazedonien

  Eu égard à la conclusion ci-dessus et au fait que le gouvernement défendeur n'a fourni aucune explication ni aucun document propres à justifier la détention subie par le requérant du 31 décembre 2003 au 23 janvier 2004, 1a Cour conclut que, pendant cette période, le requérant a fait l'objet d'une détention non reconnue, au mépris total des garanties consacrées par l'article 5 de la Convention, ce qui constitue une violation particulièrement grave de son droit à la liberté et à la sûreté garanti par cette disposition (Gisayev c. Russie, no 14811/04, §§ 152-153, 20 janvier 2011, Kadirova et autres c. Russie, no 5432/07, §§ 127-130, 27 mars 2012, et Chitaïev c. Russie, no 59334/00, § 173, 18 janvier 2007).
• EGMR, 28.03.2013 - 2964/12

  I.K. v. AUSTRIA

  The Court firstly reiterates that it has found violations of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention in numerous judgments in respect of disappearances and ill-treatment in Chechnya (see, among others, Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts); Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007; Sambiyeva v. Russia, no. 20205/07, 8 November 2011; Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, 18 January 2007; and Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, 5 February 2009).
• 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, 09.05.2018 - 52273/07

  STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA

  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, 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, 07.10.2010 - 41840/02

  SADYKOV v. RUSSIA

  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, Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 163, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 22.01.2009 - 41840/02

  SADYKOV v. RUSSIA

  In this connection, the Court further recalls the Government's admission made in two other cases that the courts in the Chechen Republic remained inoperative at least until November 2000 (see Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 125, 18 January 2007), or even until January 2001 (see Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 151, ECHR 2007-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 09.12.2008 - 50973/06

  DEMIRBAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The existence of the remedies must be sufficiently certain both in theory and in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see, for example, Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, § 134, 18 January 2007).
• EGMR, 31.01.2008 - 3896/04

  RYABOV v. RUSSIA

  Furthermore, as regards the second limb of the Government's objection, the Court observes that it is not uncommon for applicants before the Court to be represented by a non-governmental organisation (see, for example, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, § 2, ECHR 2007-..., Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, §§ 2 and 216, 18 January 2007, and Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, nos. 57953/00 and 37392/03, §§ 2 and 176, 21 June 2007).