Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07, 37430/09, 4310/10, 12926/10, 29844/11, 31143/11, 36875/11, 41890/11, 67744/11, 75318/11, 6983/13 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
YANDAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) ...
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (27)
- EGMR - 29910/08 (anhängig)
SULTAN MAGOMEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA and 9 othes applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08).The Court notes that the second applicant in Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Mr Alash Magomedov, died on 2 December 2010 after the case had been communicated to the Government, and that his widow, Ms Zakhra Magomadova, expressed her wish to pursue the application in his stead (see paragraph 50 above).
In the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) the investigation was dormant between 9 October 2004 and 6 February 2007; however in the meantime the first applicant contacted the authorities, asking for assistance in the search for Mr Usman Magomadov (see paragraphs 65 and 66 above).
The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities and to raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigation, but that the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) had failed to do so.
In the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the applicants were abducted after having been stopped at checkpoints in the presence of many witnesses (see paragraphs 8, 52, 135 and 181 above).
Moreover, in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the applicants learned from State agents that after the abductions in question their missing relatives had been arrested and placed in custody (see paragraphs 10, 54 and 182 above).
In the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Akhilgovy v. Russia (no. 52051/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government submitted that the complaints should be rejected, because the applicants had failed to substantiate their allegations that the enforced disappearances in question had been perpetrated by State servicemen.
At the outset the Court notes with regret that in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files, as requested (see paragraphs 34, 59, and 187 above).
The applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
In addition, the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), the Court notes that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention, absorb its requirements.
The applicants in the cases of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), and Akhilgovy v. Russia (no. 52051/11) based their calculations on either the average or the minimum monthly salary in Russia; the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) made their calculations on the basis of the UK Ogden Actuary Tables, using domestic subsistence levels.
The fifth applicant in the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) claimed EUR 1, 147; the sixth applicant claimed EUR 2, 038; and the seventh applicant claimed EUR 5, 570.
In the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government submitted that the award should be made in compliance with the Court's well-established case-law.
In respect of the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) the Government also submitted that no compensation for pecuniary damage should be awarded to the second applicant's heir, Ms Zakhra Magomadova.
The applicants in the case of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) left the determination of the amount to the Court's discretion.
In the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) the Government submitted that no compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be awarded to the second applicant's heir, Ms Zakhra Magomadova.
The applicants in the case of Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) claimed EUR 2, 200 and GBP 1, 259 (about EUR 1, 420) for legal work, administrative expenses and translation costs.
In the cases of Saynaroyevy Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government left the level of compensation to be awarded to the Court's discretion.
The applicants in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) and Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) asked the Court to indicate that the respondent Government shall be obliged to identify and prosecute those responsible for the abduction of their relatives, and that the award of non-pecuniary damages should be coupled with the Court's decision that a fresh investigation should follow the entry into force of the Court's judgment.
Decides that in the application Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) Ms Zakhra Magomadova has locus standi in the proceedings before the Court;.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.
29910/08.
- EGMR - 7651/08 (anhängig)
SAYNAROYEV AND SAYNAROYEVA v. RUSSIA and 9 otjer applications
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08).In the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) on 21 November 2003 the applicants were informed that the proceedings had been resumed.
The Government argued that it had been open to the applicants to challenge in court any actions or omissions on the part of the investigating authorities and to raise the issue of the effectiveness of the investigation, but that the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) had failed to do so.
In the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) Mr Sultan Saynaroyev was detained by a large group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms, who arrived in four AICs, one of which bore a large label reading "Rossiya" ( oÑÑÑ).
At the outset the Court notes with regret that in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) the Government did not submit copies of the investigation files, as requested (see paragraphs 34, 59, and 187 above).
The applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) also alleged a lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
In addition, the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
As regards the alleged breach of Article 13, read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention, as submitted by the applicants in the cases of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), the Court notes that according to its established case-law, the more specific guarantees of Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention, being a lex specialis in relation to Article 13 of the Convention, absorb its requirements.
The applicants in the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) did not seek compensation for pecuniary damage.
The applicants in the case of Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11), and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) left the determination of the amount to the Court's discretion.
The applicants in the case of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) claimed EUR 2, 000 and 2, 556.84 pounds sterling (GBP) - (about EUR 2, 885) for legal work, administrative expenses and translation costs.
In the cases of Saynaroyevy Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11), Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11) and Dishnayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 851/12) the Government left the level of compensation to be awarded to the Court's discretion.
The applicants in the cases of Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08) and Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08) asked the Court to indicate that the respondent Government shall be obliged to identify and prosecute those responsible for the abduction of their relatives, and that the award of non-pecuniary damages should be coupled with the Court's decision that a fresh investigation should follow the entry into force of the Court's judgment.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in respect of the following applications: Yandayeva and Khamayev v. Russia (no. 5374/07), Saynaroyevy v. Russia (no. 7651/08), Sultan Magomedov and Others v. Russia (no. 29910/08), Aduyeva v. Russia (no. 14688/09), Tutayeva v. Russia (no. 22253/11), Konchiyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 31280/11), Temersultanova and Others v. Russia (no. 41884/11) and Talkhigova and Others v. Russia (no. 66830/11);.
7651/08.
- RG, 12.07.1905 - V 23/05
Bergschäden
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
23/05/1945.23/05/1939.
- RG, 18.04.1903 - I 30/03
Nachverfahren.; Zwangsvollstreckung.
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
30/03/2011.30/03/1962.
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
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).The Court has already concluded that the ineffective investigation of disappearances that have occurred in Chechnya between 2000 and 2006 constitutes a systemic problem, and that criminal investigations are not an effective remedy in this regard (see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, § 217, 18 December 2012).
- EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 17/02
LIGERES v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
17/02/1958. - KAG Mainz, 30.10.2008 - M 26/08
Eingruppierung Kirchenmusiker
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
26/08/1968. - VK Niedersachsen, 29.10.2002 - 23/02
Leistungsbeschreibung: bei Unklarheiten in den Verdingungsunterlagen ist der …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
23/02/1993. - AG Wolgast, 07.11.2002 - L 7/01
Erhöhung der Regelsätze für einen Zwangsverwalter in einem …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
07/01/2003. - RG, 31.03.1903 - 28/03
Zur Bestimmung des Begriffs "Standesherr" in § 7 des zum …
Auszug aus EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 5374/07
28/03/2002. - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
- EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01
LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 13.06.2000 - 23531/94
TIMURTAS c. TURQUIE
- KAG Münster, 28.01.2010 - 25/09
- VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 19.07.2007 - 15/04
- EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94
CICEK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10
DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 3340/08
ORTSUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 40166/07
Russland muss Tschetschenen Schmerzensgeld zahlen
- EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 11059/12
ALIYEV AND GADZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.05.2000 - 20764/92
ERTAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 2952/06
[ENG]
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 12646/15
MAYLENSKIY v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 16.12.2010 - 9960/05
[ENG]
- EGMR, 21.01.2020 - 44116/10
TIMERBULATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
5374/07 and 9 others, § 223, 4 December 2018).
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".
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11, 41890/11, 52056/11, 13920/12, 40161/12, 72821/12, 3083/13, 6983/13 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
DZHAMAKHADZHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman ...
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR - 13920/12 (anhängig)
BATALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12).The applicants in Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) additionally submitted that they had found themselves in especially difficult circumstances after the abduction of Mr Musa Tashayev, because three sons of the first and the second applicants had either disappeared or had been killed within the two years that followed.
Turning to the applications Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12), the Court notes that they were lodged eleven years after the abduction of the applicants' relatives.
The Court further notes that the applicants in Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) informed the authorities about the abduction without there being any undue delay.
In the Court's view, it cannot be concluded therefore that the applicants in Tovdayevy (no. 41890/11) and Batalova and Others (no. 13920/12) failed to show the requisite diligence by unreasonably waiting for the pending investigation to yield results (contrast Utsmiyeva and Others v. Russia (dec.), no. 31179/11, §§ 34-40, 26 August 2014).
Turning to the application Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), the Court observes that the alleged abductors spoke unaccented Russian and arrived in a heavy military vehicle, the APC.
In the cases of Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) and Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13), the Government contended that Article 2 of the Convention was inapplicable to the applicants' complaints of abduction, which they said had to be examined under Article 5 of the Convention.
The applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court accordingly finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
The Government argued that in applications Dzhamakhadzhiyev v. Russia (no. 31143/11), Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12), Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12), Larsanova v. Russia (no. 3083/13) and Gaydakova v. Russia (no. 6983/13) the compensation sought by the applicants was excessive.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) or Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
13920/12.
- EGMR - 52056/11 (anhängig)
TAGIROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11).The Government further challenged the claim in the application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11) that the first applicant had complained about the abduction of her relatives in 2002.
As to the application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11), lodged with the Court nine years after the abduction, the Court notes that the applicants and their relatives made consistent allegations in the domestic proceedings that the first applicant had complained to the authorities about the abduction of Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov for the first time in June 2002 (see paragraphs 61, 65 and 66 above).
The Court further notes that in application Tagirova and Others (no. 52056/11) it was established that Mr Tapa Tagirov and Mr Apti Tagirov had been arrested by law-enforcement agents from the Chechen Republic (see paragraph 69 above).
The applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) additionally complained about the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court accordingly finds that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) and Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Tovdayevy v. Russia (no. 41890/11), Tagirova and Others v. Russia (no. 52056/11), Batalova and Others v. Russia (no. 13920/12) or Azizovy v. Russia (no. 72821/12);.
52056/11.
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
As to the costs and expenses, the Court must establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants' representatives were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary and reasonable as to quantum (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 220, Series A no. 324).
- VerfG Brandenburg, 25.08.2010 - VfGBbg 11/10
Ablehnung des Antrags auf Erlass einer eA die darauf gerichtet ist, Träger …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
12/10/1953. - EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice and for international and domestic reports on disappearances in Chechnya and Ingushetia between 1999 and 2006, see Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, §§ 43-59 and §§ 69-84, 18 December 2012). - EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather in the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01
LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Where the news about a missing person's death has been preceded by a sufficiently long period in which he or she has been deemed to have disappeared, there is a distinct period during which the applicants are left with sustained uncertainty, anguish and distress, these being characteristics of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
The essence of such a violation lies not so much in the fact of the "disappearance" of the family member, but rather in the authorities' reactions and attitudes to the situation when it is brought to their attention (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 358, 18 June 2002, and Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 164, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)). - EGMR, 28.06.2011 - 17/02
LIGERES v. LATVIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
17/02/1961. - KAG Freiburg, 19.06.2009 - 11/09
Anspruch auf Freistellung und Kostenübernahme für eine beabsichtigte …
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 31143/11
Disappeared on 11/09/2002. - EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94
CICEK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10
DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 09.10.2014 - 42575/07
[ENG]
- EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 40166/07
Russland muss Tschetschenen Schmerzensgeld zahlen
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 67437/09
Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen
- EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 31179/11
UTSMIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 20727/04
BANTAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 8620/09
[ENG]
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".