Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DZHABRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (29)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR - 49112/15 (anhängig)

  ALIYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  Sambiyeva and Eskiyev v. Russia (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 49112/15).

  In the case of Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) the first, second and third applicants are respectively the sister and daughters of Mr Zayndi (in the documents submitted also spelled as Zendi) Aliyev, who was born in 1971.

  According to an entry in the criminal case file, the first applicant in Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) was informed of that decision.

  On 26 May 2014 the first applicant in Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) was granted victim status in the case and questioned.

  On 22 January 2015 the first applicant in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and the first applicant in Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) jointly challenged before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny the investigators' decision of 5 June 2014 to suspend the proceedings.

  In Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13), the most significant gap in the proceedings comprised almost five years (see paragraph 36 above), in Garayeva and Others (no. 51529/13) the most significant gap was of more than seven years (see paragraphs 53 and 57 above), in Sadulayevy (no. 42976/15) - almost seven years (see paragraphs 83 and 86 above), in Burayeva (no. 46992/15) - more than eight and half years (see paragraphs 101 and 102 above), in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) - more than ten and half years (see paragraphs 117 and 118 above), in Salmaniyevy (no. 51863/15) - more than six years (see paragraph 135 above), in Shakhgiriyevy (no. 61161/15) - almost ten years (see paragraphs 149 and 152 above), and in Saydal-Aliyevy (no. 62168/15) the most significant gap comprised more than seven and half years (see paragraphs 167 and 168 above).

  49112/15.

• EGMR - 49097/15 (anhängig)

  SAMBIYEVA AND ESKIYEV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  Sambiyeva and Eskiyev v. Russia (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 49112/15).

  In the case of Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) the first applicant is the wife of Mr Adam Eskiyev, who was born in 1971.

  On 9 August 2012 the applicants in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) requested to be granted victim status in the criminal case.

  On 22 January 2015 the first applicant in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and the first applicant in Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) jointly challenged before the Zavodskoy District Court of Grozny the investigators' decision of 5 June 2014 to suspend the proceedings.

  In Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13), the most significant gap in the proceedings comprised almost five years (see paragraph 36 above), in Garayeva and Others (no. 51529/13) the most significant gap was of more than seven years (see paragraphs 53 and 57 above), in Sadulayevy (no. 42976/15) - almost seven years (see paragraphs 83 and 86 above), in Burayeva (no. 46992/15) - more than eight and half years (see paragraphs 101 and 102 above), in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) - more than ten and half years (see paragraphs 117 and 118 above), in Salmaniyevy (no. 51863/15) - more than six years (see paragraph 135 above), in Shakhgiriyevy (no. 61161/15) - almost ten years (see paragraphs 149 and 152 above), and in Saydal-Aliyevy (no. 62168/15) the most significant gap comprised more than seven and half years (see paragraphs 167 and 168 above).

  49097/15.

• BPatG, 17.11.2011 - 3 ZA (pat) 54/11

  Patentnichtigkeitsklageverfahren - mehrere Gerichtsgebühren bei nachträglicher …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  15/09/1974.

  15/09/2015.

  15/09/2015.

• KAG Mainz, 30.10.2008 - M 26/08

  Eingruppierung Kirchenmusiker

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  26/08/1968.

  26/08/1969.

  26/08/1977.

• EGMR - 51863/15 (anhängig)

  SALMANIYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  Salmaniyevy v. Russia (no. 51863/15).

  In Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13), the most significant gap in the proceedings comprised almost five years (see paragraph 36 above), in Garayeva and Others (no. 51529/13) the most significant gap was of more than seven years (see paragraphs 53 and 57 above), in Sadulayevy (no. 42976/15) - almost seven years (see paragraphs 83 and 86 above), in Burayeva (no. 46992/15) - more than eight and half years (see paragraphs 101 and 102 above), in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) - more than ten and half years (see paragraphs 117 and 118 above), in Salmaniyevy (no. 51863/15) - more than six years (see paragraph 135 above), in Shakhgiriyevy (no. 61161/15) - almost ten years (see paragraphs 149 and 152 above), and in Saydal-Aliyevy (no. 62168/15) the most significant gap comprised more than seven and half years (see paragraphs 167 and 168 above).

  51863/15.

• EGMR - 61161/15 (anhängig)

  SHAKHGIRIYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  Shakhgiriyevy v. Russia (no. 61161/15).

  In Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13), the most significant gap in the proceedings comprised almost five years (see paragraph 36 above), in Garayeva and Others (no. 51529/13) the most significant gap was of more than seven years (see paragraphs 53 and 57 above), in Sadulayevy (no. 42976/15) - almost seven years (see paragraphs 83 and 86 above), in Burayeva (no. 46992/15) - more than eight and half years (see paragraphs 101 and 102 above), in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) - more than ten and half years (see paragraphs 117 and 118 above), in Salmaniyevy (no. 51863/15) - more than six years (see paragraph 135 above), in Shakhgiriyevy (no. 61161/15) - almost ten years (see paragraphs 149 and 152 above), and in Saydal-Aliyevy (no. 62168/15) the most significant gap comprised more than seven and half years (see paragraphs 167 and 168 above).

  61161/15.

• EGMR - 62168/15 (anhängig)

  SAYDAL-ALIYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  Saydal-Aliyevy v. Russia (no. 62168/15).

  In Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13), the most significant gap in the proceedings comprised almost five years (see paragraph 36 above), in Garayeva and Others (no. 51529/13) the most significant gap was of more than seven years (see paragraphs 53 and 57 above), in Sadulayevy (no. 42976/15) - almost seven years (see paragraphs 83 and 86 above), in Burayeva (no. 46992/15) - more than eight and half years (see paragraphs 101 and 102 above), in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) - more than ten and half years (see paragraphs 117 and 118 above), in Salmaniyevy (no. 51863/15) - more than six years (see paragraph 135 above), in Shakhgiriyevy (no. 61161/15) - almost ten years (see paragraphs 149 and 152 above), and in Saydal-Aliyevy (no. 62168/15) the most significant gap comprised more than seven and half years (see paragraphs 167 and 168 above).

  62168/15.

• EGMR - 42976/15 (anhängig)

  SADULAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  Sadulayevy v. Russia (no. 42976/15).

  In Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13), the most significant gap in the proceedings comprised almost five years (see paragraph 36 above), in Garayeva and Others (no. 51529/13) the most significant gap was of more than seven years (see paragraphs 53 and 57 above), in Sadulayevy (no. 42976/15) - almost seven years (see paragraphs 83 and 86 above), in Burayeva (no. 46992/15) - more than eight and half years (see paragraphs 101 and 102 above), in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) - more than ten and half years (see paragraphs 117 and 118 above), in Salmaniyevy (no. 51863/15) - more than six years (see paragraph 135 above), in Shakhgiriyevy (no. 61161/15) - almost ten years (see paragraphs 149 and 152 above), and in Saydal-Aliyevy (no. 62168/15) the most significant gap comprised more than seven and half years (see paragraphs 167 and 168 above).

  42976/15.

• EGMR - 46992/15 (anhängig)

  BURAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  Burayeva v. Russia (no. 46992/15).

  In Chatuyeva and Others (no. 3765/13), the most significant gap in the proceedings comprised almost five years (see paragraph 36 above), in Garayeva and Others (no. 51529/13) the most significant gap was of more than seven years (see paragraphs 53 and 57 above), in Sadulayevy (no. 42976/15) - almost seven years (see paragraphs 83 and 86 above), in Burayeva (no. 46992/15) - more than eight and half years (see paragraphs 101 and 102 above), in Sambiyeva and Eskiyev (no. 49097/15) and Aliyevy (no. 49112/15) - more than ten and half years (see paragraphs 117 and 118 above), in Salmaniyevy (no. 51863/15) - more than six years (see paragraph 135 above), in Shakhgiriyevy (no. 61161/15) - almost ten years (see paragraphs 149 and 152 above), and in Saydal-Aliyevy (no. 62168/15) the most significant gap comprised more than seven and half years (see paragraphs 167 and 168 above).

  46992/15.

• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2019 - 3752/13

  For a summary of the relevant domestic law and international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012).

  2944/06 and 4 others, 18 December 2012; Kaykharova and Others v. Russia, nos.

• EGMR, 16.10.2007 - 11/04

  VOTTO c. ITALIE
• KAGH, 07.06.2013 - M 22/12

  Zustimmung der MAV beim Einsatz von Dienstleistungskräften (Anästhesieteam) - zum …
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
• VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 18.02.2005 - 12/02
• EGMR, 22.05.2012 - 19/11

  LANG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HASTIE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10

  DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 1721/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 7050/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 7821/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 51534/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 11554/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 31179/11

  UTSMIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 38828/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.10.2013 - 34541/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 53036/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 26960/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 28.09.2006 - 34542/03

  YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR - 13920/12 (anhängig)

  BATALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  14. Application no. 3752/13 (Dzhabrailovy v. Russia).

  In respect of the applications Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Kudusov and Others v. Russia (no. 1978/13), Larsanova v. Russia (3083/13), Dzhabrailovy v. Russia (no. 3752/13) and Baysultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 12642/13) have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there "excessive or unexplained delays" on the applicants' part in submitting their complaints to the Court following the abduction of their relatives, or have there been considerable lapses of time or significant delays and lulls in the investigative activity which could have an impact on the application of the six-month limit (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, §§ 162, 165 and 166, ECHR 2009)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their respective applications with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction and/or disappearance of their relatives.

  3752/13.

• EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10

  TIMERBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In assessing the circumstances of all five cases, the Court observes that all of the applications were lodged within ten years of the incidents (contrast Dzhabrailova and Others v. Russia, nos. 3752/13 and 9 others, 7 May 2019, where the Court declared inadmissible applications submitted more than twelve years after the abductions of the applicants' relatives), and that the authorities became aware of the abductions without there being undue delays.
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 36875/11

  KHAKIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  In assessing the circumstances of the cases, the Court takes into account that all of the applications were lodged within twelve years of the incidents (contrast Dzhabrailova and Others v. Russia, nos. 3752/13 and 9 others, 7 May 2019, where the Court declared inadmissible applications submitted more than twelve years after the abduction of the applicants' relatives), and that the authorities became aware of the abductions without undue delays.

• EGMR, 17.09.2019 - 61555/13

  UMAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  3752/13 and 9 others, 7 May 2019; and Ismailova and Others v. Russia, (dec.) [Committee], nos.
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 57707/13

  MAGAMADOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  3752/13 and 9 others, March 2019; and Ismailova and Others v. Russia, (dec.) [Committee], nos.
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 51119/15

  GADAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court takes into account the fact that the present application was lodged within less than seven years and two months of the incident (contrast Dzhabrailova and Others v. Russia [CTE], nos. 3752/13 and 9 others, 7 May 2019, where the Court declared inadmissible applications submitted more than twelve years after the abductions of the relatives of the applicants), and that the authorities became aware of the abduction without any undue delay.
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 11708/11

  MURTAZALIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  3752/13 and 9 others, § 192, 7 May 2019, where the Court criticised the applicants' inactivity over a period of between four and five years).
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 67744/11

  BAKAYEVY v. RUSSIA

  The applicants' inactivity seems to indicate that they were not expecting any important investigative developments which could have succeeded in establishing the whereabouts of their relative, identifying the perpetrators, or making significant progress in having the crime resolved (compare to Dzhabrailova and Others v. Russia (dec.) [CTE], no. 3752/13 and 9 Others, § 192, 7 May 2019, where the Court criticised the fact that the applicants had remained inactive for between four and five years).