Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KHABIROV v. RUSSIA
No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (englisch)
Wird zitiert von ... (2) Zitiert selbst (26)
- EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02
ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).More generally, we do not agree that pre-investigation inquiries are insufficient in cases in which neither suspicious circumstance (see Kotenok v. Russia, no. 50636/11, §§ 73 and 77, 23 March 2021; Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 58, 17 June 2008) nor any reasonable grounds to suspect third-party involvement in the commission of suicide are found (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 13094/02, § 50, 27 May 2008).
- EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).In these circumstances, in which there was at no time any reasonable suspicion or indication of homicide (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others, cited above, § 49) nor any indication that the victim was driven to suicide by bullying, threats or ill-treatment (see Abdullah Yılmaz, cited above, §§ 59-76; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 112, 17 January 2013; Şahinkuşu v. Turkey, no. 38287/06, § 52, 21 June 2016; and Yasemin Doğan v. Turkey, no. 40860/04, § 47, 6 September 2016), the authorities did everything that was necessary to investigate the death of the applicant's son (see also Kotenok, cited above).
- EGMR, 23.03.2021 - 50636/11
KOTENOK c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
The principles established in the above cited Fernandes de Oliveira case, concerning a psychiatric inpatient, apply equally to people in custody (see Kotenok v. Russia, no. 50636/11, § 54, 23 March 2021) and, similar to them, to conscripts, as they are also within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State (see Mosendz, cited above, § 92).More generally, we do not agree that pre-investigation inquiries are insufficient in cases in which neither suspicious circumstance (see Kotenok v. Russia, no. 50636/11, §§ 73 and 77, 23 March 2021; Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 58, 17 June 2008) nor any reasonable grounds to suspect third-party involvement in the commission of suicide are found (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 13094/02, § 50, 27 May 2008).
- EGMR, 27.05.2008 - 13094/02
HASAN ÇALISKAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
The same standards also apply to investigations concerning fatalities during compulsory military service, including the suicide of conscripts (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 13094/02, § 49, 27 May 2008, and Abdullah Yılmaz, cited above, § 58).More generally, we do not agree that pre-investigation inquiries are insufficient in cases in which neither suspicious circumstance (see Kotenok v. Russia, no. 50636/11, §§ 73 and 77, 23 March 2021; Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 58, 17 June 2008) nor any reasonable grounds to suspect third-party involvement in the commission of suicide are found (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others v. Turkey, no. 13094/02, § 50, 27 May 2008).
- EGMR, 21.06.2016 - 38287/06
SAHINKUSU c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
The Court must examine whether the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and, if so, whether they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Keenan, cited above, §§ 89 and 93; Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 50-51, 15 January 2009; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 90, 14 February 2012; Şahinkuşu v. Turkey, no. 38287/06, § 58, 21 June 2016; Yasemin Doğan v. Turkey, no. 40860/04, § 46, 6 September 2016; Cengiz and Saygıkan v. Turkey, no. 26754/12, § 47, 24 January 2017; Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase, cited above, § 136; and Kurt, cited above, § 158).In these circumstances, in which there was at no time any reasonable suspicion or indication of homicide (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others, cited above, § 49) nor any indication that the victim was driven to suicide by bullying, threats or ill-treatment (see Abdullah Yılmaz, cited above, §§ 59-76; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 112, 17 January 2013; Şahinkuşu v. Turkey, no. 38287/06, § 52, 21 June 2016; and Yasemin Doğan v. Turkey, no. 40860/04, § 47, 6 September 2016), the authorities did everything that was necessary to investigate the death of the applicant's son (see also Kotenok, cited above).
- EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 40860/04
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
The Court must examine whether the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and, if so, whether they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Keenan, cited above, §§ 89 and 93; Branko Tomašić and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 50-51, 15 January 2009; Shumkova v. Russia, no. 9296/06, § 90, 14 February 2012; Şahinkuşu v. Turkey, no. 38287/06, § 58, 21 June 2016; Yasemin Doğan v. Turkey, no. 40860/04, § 46, 6 September 2016; Cengiz and Saygıkan v. Turkey, no. 26754/12, § 47, 24 January 2017; Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase, cited above, § 136; and Kurt, cited above, § 158).In these circumstances, in which there was at no time any reasonable suspicion or indication of homicide (see Hasan Çalışkan and Others, cited above, § 49) nor any indication that the victim was driven to suicide by bullying, threats or ill-treatment (see Abdullah Yılmaz, cited above, §§ 59-76; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 112, 17 January 2013; Şahinkuşu v. Turkey, no. 38287/06, § 52, 21 June 2016; and Yasemin Doğan v. Turkey, no. 40860/04, § 47, 6 September 2016), the authorities did everything that was necessary to investigate the death of the applicant's son (see also Kotenok, cited above).
- EGMR, 30.04.2014 - 13596/05
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
The Government considered that the present case was similar to the case of Tikhonova v. Russia (no. 13596/05, 30 April 2014), where the Court had established that the applicant's son had been emotionally immature and that there had been a history of suicide in his family, but that there was no evidence which could demonstrate beyond the reasonable doubt that the authorities had known or should have known about a real and immediate risk to his life.In the context of persons undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State since any events in the army lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, and that the authorities are under a duty to protect them (see Abdullah Yılmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 56, 17 June 2008; Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92 and 98, 17 January 2013; Perevedentsevy v. Russia, no. 39583/05, § 93, 24 April 2014; and Tikhonova v. Russia, no. 13596/05, § 68, 30 April 2014).
- EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 46956/09
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
The Court also notes that the scope of the pre-investigation inquiry was limited to "explanations" taken from the four officers concerned and reports of psychology experts (see paragraph 48 above), none of which was thus accompanied by the necessary safeguards inherent in an effective criminal investigation, such as criminal liability for perjury (see Lyapin v. Russia, no. 46956/09, § 134, 24 July 2014). - EGMR, 16.02.2021 - 4871/16
Hanan ./. Deutschland - Ermittlungen wegen Kundus-Angriffs auf Zivilisten …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
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, for example, Branko Tomašić and Others, cited above, § 62, with further references; Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase, cited above, § 164; and Hanan v. Germany [GC], no. 4871/16, § 201, 16 February 2021). - EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93
Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …
Auszug aus EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 69450/10
The investigation must be adequate in the sense that it is capable of leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Oğur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III, and Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 172). - EGMR, 18.06.2015 - 41675/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 31.07.2014 - 35587/08
ALIYEVA AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
- EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 35403/06
TSINTSABADZE v. GEORGIA
- EGMR, 01.12.2016 - 45115/09
TRAPEZNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 03.05.2012 - 40657/04
KLEYN AND ALEKSANDROVICH v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
- EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 41720/13
NICOLAE VIRGILIU TANASE v. ROMANIA
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94
TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.04.2014 - 39583/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 14.02.2012 - 9296/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 40145/98
KILINÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.04.2015 - 44297/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 24.01.2017 - 26754/12
CENGIZ ET SAYGIKAN c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 69997/11
GVOZDEVA v. RUSSIA
For the relevant provisions of domestic law on the prevention of suicide and psychological assessment and assistance in the military forces, see Khabirov v. Russia (no. 69450/10, §§ 52-70, 12 October 2021).For a summary of the applicable general principles, see Boychenko v. Russia (no. 8663/08, §§ 76-84, 12 October 2021) and Khabirov v. Russia (no. 69450/10, §§ 86-96, 12 October 2021).
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09
VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".