Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NANA MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (20)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 21899/02

  ABDULLAH YILMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  Furthermore, States are required to secure high professional standards among regular soldiers, whose acts and omissions - particularly vis-à-vis conscripts - could, in certain circumstances, engage their responsibility, inter alia, under the substantive limb of Article 2 (see, in particular, Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, §§ 56-57, 17 June 2008, see also, mutatis mutandis, Stoyanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 42980/04, § 61, 9 November 2010).

  The Court therefore considers that any allegation that the applicant's son was murdered would be purely speculative (see, mutatis mutandis, Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, no. 21899/02, § 59, 17 June 2008, and Durdu v. Turkey, no. 30677/10, §§ 59-61, 3 September 2013).

• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings requires that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47, Series A no. 324).
• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  In view of this conclusion, the Court considers it unnecessary to examine whether the other aspects of the investigation met the requirements of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Magnitskiy and Others v. Russia, nos. 32631/09 and 53799/12, § 272, 27 August 2019, and Anahit Mkrtchyan, cited above, § 101).

• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, §§ 109-11, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 30500/11

  MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under 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 Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 24.03.2009 - 27866/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under 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 Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 17.01.2013 - 52013/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  In the context of individuals undergoing compulsory military service, the Court has previously had occasion to emphasise that, as with persons in custody, conscripts are under 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 Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-42, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, § 92, 17 January 2013; and Malik Babayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 30500/11, § 66, 1 June 2017).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  In the instant case, the Court finds no evidence in the material before it to support the hypothesis that V. Muradyan's life was taken intentionally (contrast Beker, cited above, §§ 45-54, and Lapshin v. Azerbaijan, no. 13527/18, §§ 110-20, 20 May 2021; see also, mutatis mutandis, Mi?¾igárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, § 89, 14 December 2010).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 62870/13

  BILBIJA AND BLAZEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  The Court cannot but agree with the domestic court on this issue and reiterates in this connection that in Article 2 cases concerning proceedings instituted to elucidate the circumstances of an individual's death, lengthy proceedings such as these are a strong indication that the proceedings were defective to the point of constituting a violation of the respondent State's positive obligations under the Convention, unless the State has provided highly convincing and plausible reasons to justify such a course of proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 219, 19 December 2017; Kudra v. Croatia, no. 13904/07, § 113, 18 December 2012; and Bilbija and Bla?¾evic v. Croatia, no. 62870/13, § 107, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 13904/07

  KUDRA v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  The Court cannot but agree with the domestic court on this issue and reiterates in this connection that in Article 2 cases concerning proceedings instituted to elucidate the circumstances of an individual's death, lengthy proceedings such as these are a strong indication that the proceedings were defective to the point of constituting a violation of the respondent State's positive obligations under the Convention, unless the State has provided highly convincing and plausible reasons to justify such a course of proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 219, 19 December 2017; Kudra v. Croatia, no. 13904/07, § 113, 18 December 2012; and Bilbija and Bla?¾evic v. Croatia, no. 62870/13, § 107, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR, 07.06.2005 - 40145/98

  KILINÇ ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 30677/10

  DURDU v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 42980/04

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.03.2018 - 37685/10

  RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2016 - 11275/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 3673/11

  MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 11244/12

  GULYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 44301/13

  HARRISON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 35242/04

  M.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 17.09.2026 - 54266/17

  MARGARYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 64 The Court refers to the general principles set out in its cases under Article 2 of the Convention concerning deaths during military service (see, among other authorities, Beker v. Turkey, no. 27866/03, §§ 41-43, 24 March 2009; Mosendz v. Ukraine, no. 52013/08, §§ 92-93, 17 January 2013; Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 118-27, 5 April 2022; and Ohanjanyan v. Armenia, no. 70665/11, §§ 133-38, 25 April 2023).
• EGMR, 26.11.2024 - 1718/21

  A.P. v. AUSTRIA

  Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation (see, among many, Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 123, 5 April 2022).
• EGMR, 08.11.2022 - 2169/12

  HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA and 1 other application

  The investigation must be effective 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 Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç, cited above, § 172; and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 125, 5 April 2022).

• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 40410/07

  KOSTIC v. SERBIA

  Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody or in the army, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention or service (see Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 123, 5 April 2022).
• EGMR, 11.12.2025 - 46569/19

  INTRANUOVO v. ITALY

  The foregoing elements, based on the findings of the independent forensic experts, suffice for the Court to conclude that the applicant put forward elements that, at the very least, are capable of casting doubt on the conclusion that A.D.'s death occurred in the manner set out by the authorities (compare and contrast Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 130, 5 April 2022, and Ataman v. Turkey, no. 46252/99, § 53, 27 April 2006).
• EGMR, 25.04.2023 - 70665/11

  OHANJANYAN v. ARMENIA

  It therefore considers that these matters fall to be examined below under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, and decides to join this part of the objection to the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 106, 5 April 2022).
• EGMR, 04.06.2024 - 48998/14

  VARYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it has previously examined the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction in other cases concerning fatalities during military service in Nagorno-Karabakh and found that there was a jurisdictional link for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention between Armenia and individuals who had died while performing military service in the territory in question (see Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 123-27, 24 November 2016; Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 86-92, 5 April 2022; Dimaksyan v. Armenia, no. 29906/14, §§ 43 and 44, 17 October 2023; and Hovhannisyan and Karapetyan v. Armenia, no. 67351/13, §§ 59-63, 17 October 2023, concerning the deaths of conscripts during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia no. 57129/10, §§ 55-56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh).
• EGMR, 09.01.2025 - 51448/15

  PETROSYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court has previously examined the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction in other cases and has found that, at the relevant time - that is, prior to the changes in the situation on the ground as a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, which ended on 10 November 2020 with Azerbaijan capturing all the surrounding territories and part of the "NKR" proper and with the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in the area for at least five years (see Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, § 91, 5 April 2022), and a further change in the situation on the ground in September 2023 as a consequence of the nine-month long blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, the subsequent actions of Azerbaijan and the exodus of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh - Armenia had jurisdiction over the territory in question.
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 67351/13

  HOVHANNISYAN AND KARAPETYAN v. ARMENIA

  Rn. 59 The Court notes that it has already examined in other cases the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction over the territory in question and found that Armenia exercised effective control over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding territories and that, therefore, complaints pertaining to events that happened in that area came within the jurisdiction of Armenia for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention (see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no. 13216/05, §§ 169-86, ECHR 2015; Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 11275/07, §§ 123-27, 24 November 2016 and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 86-92, 5 April 2022, specifically concerning the deaths of conscripts during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia, no. 57129/10, § 56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh).
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14

  DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA

  In that connection, the Court notes that it has already examined the issue of Armenia's jurisdiction in other cases concerning fatalities during military service in Nagorno-Karabakh and found that there was a jurisdictional link for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention between Armenia and the persons who had died while performing military service in the territory in question (see Muradyan, cited above, §§ 123-27, and Nana Muradyan v. Armenia, no. 69517/11, §§ 86-92, 5 April 2022, concerning the deaths of conscripts during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh; and compare Mirzoyan v. Armenia no. 57129/10, §§ 54-56, 23 May 2019, concerning the murder of a conscript during compulsory military service in Nagorno-Karabakh).
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 9970/19

  MANUCHARYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 18635/16

  KHACHATRYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 26.03.2026 - 19234/18

  SHABRATSKYY AND SHABRATSKA v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 04.12.2025 - 5497/17

  KHAGHAGHUTYAN YERKKHOSUTYUN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 18.06.2024 - 58737/14

  A.P. v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 43082/14

  HAMZAYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 11.10.2022 - 35814/14

  MALKHASYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2026 - 30374/17

  SAMVELYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 623/13

  VOSKANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 18196/23 (anhängig)

  GHAZARYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 26854/24 (anhängig)

  MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR - 46398/20 (anhängig)

  SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 24.01.2023 - 12105/13

  STEPANYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 12.03.2026 - 11103/18

  PETRYK v. UKRAINE