Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13, 33465/13, 71383/13, 78616/13, 69031/14 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BAYSULTANOVA 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 treatment) ...
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (24)
- EGMR - 71383/13 (anhängig)
DANGIRIYEVY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13).The Government contested the victim status of Ms Imani Dangiriyeva, the first applicant in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), arguing that the domestic courts had awarded her substantial compensation in connection with the abduction of her husband and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into this incident (see paragraphs 134 and 135 above).
In respect of the application Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) the Government argued that the second applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies.
Accordingly, the Court confirms that the second applicant in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) was not obliged to pursue civil remedies.
In Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) the domestic courts, having examined the criminal case file, established that Mr Takhir Dangiriyev had been abducted and killed by State agents (see paragraphs 134-135 above).
In addition, the applicants in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) complained of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court thus finds that the applicants in all the applications did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
Having regard to its conclusions, the principles enumerated above and the parties' submissions, as well as the domestic award in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), the Court awards the applicants the amounts set out in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them in respect of those amounts (see, for a similar approach, Grigoryev and Igamberdiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 10970/12, § 32, 12 February 2019).
Holds that in the application Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13) Ms Imani Dangiriyeva has victim status in relation to her complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 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 Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13) and Astamirova and Israilov v. Russia (no. 69031/14);.
71383/13.
- EGMR - 78616/13 (anhängig)
IBRAGIMOVY v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13).As regards the applications Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) and Astamirova and Israilov (no. 69031/14), the Court notes that Mr Movlid Ibragimov and Mr Lom Israilov were taken away by armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas after those armed men had checked their identity documents (see paragraphs 137, 149, 161 and 169 above).
In addition, the applicants in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) complained of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court thus finds that the applicants in all the applications did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their grievances 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 Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13) and Astamirova and Israilov v. Russia (no. 69031/14);.
78616/13.
- EGMR - 69031/14 (anhängig)
ASTAMIROVA AND ISRAILOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
Astamirova and Israilov v. Russia (no. 69031/14).All of the applicants except for those in Astamirova and Israilov (no. 69031/14) also referred to their "legal illiteracy" and their attempts to carry out an unofficial search for their missing relatives.
As regards the applications Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) and Astamirova and Israilov (no. 69031/14), the Court notes that Mr Movlid Ibragimov and Mr Lom Israilov were taken away by armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas after those armed men had checked their identity documents (see paragraphs 137, 149, 161 and 169 above).
The applicants in Astamirova and Israilov (no. 69031/14) also argued that, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, there had been no domestic remedies available in respect of their complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13) and Astamirova and Israilov v. Russia (no. 69031/14);.
69031/14.
- EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
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).The award was by no means comparable to what has been awarded under Article 41 of the Convention in similar cases (see Scordino, cited above, §§ 181 and 202; Umarova and Others v. Russia, no. 25654/08, § 125, 31 July 2012, and Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia (nos. 2944/06 and 4 others, § 260, 18 September 2012).
- EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
As to costs and expenses, the Court has to establish firstly whether the costs and expenses were actually incurred and, secondly, 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). - KAGH, 27.04.2012 - M 12/11
Änderung der Parkordnung eines Parkhauses; Zustimmung der Mitarbeitervertretung
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
12/11/1963. - EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94
ORHAN v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
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, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
The Court has found on many occasions that unacknowledged detention constitutes a complete negation of the guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and discloses a particularly serious violation of its provisions (see Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, § 164, 27 February 2001, and Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 122, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts). - EGMR, 12.10.2006 - 60272/00
ESTAMIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
The Court has previously concluded that a civil action to obtain redress for damage sustained as a result of alleged illegal acts or unlawful conduct of State agents cannot be regarded as an effective remedy in the context of claims brought under Article 2 of the Convention (see Khashiyev and Akayeva, cited above, §§ 119-21, and Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no. 60272/00, § 77, 12 October 2006). - EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02
IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
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)). - VG der Evangelischen Landeskirche in Württemberg, 11.07.2014 - 13/12
- EGMR, 19.11.2015 - 17694/10
MAIO ET AUTRES c. ITALIE
- KAGH, 05.07.2013 - K 24/12
- EGMR, 03.06.2008 - 15/02
DURUK ET YÜCEDAG c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 57945/00
- EGMR, 27.02.2001 - 25704/94
CICEK v. TURKEY
- 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, 12.02.2019 - 10970/12
GRIGORYEV AND IGAMBERDIYEVA v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 22698/09
Russland muss Tschetschenen 260.000 Euro zahlen
- EGMR, 12.02.2009 - 20727/04
BANTAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 25654/08
[ENG]
- EGMR, 27.02.2014 - 8620/09
[ENG]
- EGMR - 13920/12 (anhängig)
BATALOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
15. Application no. 12642/13 (Baysultanova and Others 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.
12642/13.
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 - 71383/13 |
Sonstiges
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93
Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
Auszug aus EGMR - 71383/13
(d) Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation conducted by the domestic authorities into the disappearance of the applicants' missing relative sufficient to meet their obligation to carry out an effective investigation, as required by Article 2 of the Convention?. - EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 2944/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 71383/13
- the Court's numerous previous judgments in which violations of Article 2 of the Convention were found in respect of both the disappearances of the applicants' relatives as a result of their detention by unidentified members of the security forces and the failure to conduct an effective investigation (see, among recent examples, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, 18 December 2012, and Mikiyeva and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 02.08.2005 - 65899/01
TANIS ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR - 71383/13
(b) If so, can the burden of proof be shifted to the Government in respect of providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the circumstances of the applicants' relative's abduction and ensuing disappearance (see, mutatis mutandis, Varnava and Others, cited above, §§ 181-84; Tanış and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, § 160, ECHR 2005-VIII))? Are the Government in a position to rebut the applicants' submissions that State agents were involved in the abduction by submitting documents which are in their exclusive possession or by providing by other means a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the event?. - EGMR, 31.05.2016 - 58055/10
DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA
Auszug aus EGMR - 71383/13
Have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were there on the part of the applicants "excessive or unexplained delays" in submitting their complaints to the Court after the abduction of their relative, and 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 and Doshuyeva and Yusupov v. Russia (dec.), no. 58055/10, ECHR 31 May 2016)? The applicants are invited to provide explanations for the delay in lodging their application with the Court, as well as copies of documents reflecting their correspondence with the authorities in connection with the abduction of their relative. - EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 61536/08
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR - 71383/13
61536/08, 6647/09, 6659/09, 63535/10 and 15695/11, 30 January 2014); and;.
- EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 12642/13
BAYSULTANOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13).The Government contested the victim status of Ms Imani Dangiriyeva, the first applicant in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), arguing that the domestic courts had awarded her substantial compensation in connection with the abduction of her husband and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into this incident (see paragraphs 134 and 135 above).
In respect of the application Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) the Government argued that the second applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies.
Accordingly, the Court confirms that the second applicant in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) was not obliged to pursue civil remedies.
In Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) the domestic courts, having examined the criminal case file, established that Mr Takhir Dangiriyev had been abducted and killed by State agents (see paragraphs 134-135 above).
In addition, the applicants in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) complained of the lack of effective domestic remedies in respect of the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.
The Court thus finds that the applicants in all the applications did not have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 2 of the Convention, in breach of Article 13. In addition, the applicants in Dangiriyevy (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy (no. 78616/13) did not have an effective domestic remedy for their grievances under Article 3, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
Having regard to its conclusions, the principles enumerated above and the parties' submissions, as well as the domestic award in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), the Court awards the applicants the amounts set out in the appended table, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them in respect of those amounts (see, for a similar approach, Grigoryev and Igamberdiyeva v. Russia [Committee], no. 10970/12, § 32, 12 February 2019).
Holds that in the application Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13) Ms Imani Dangiriyeva has victim status in relation to her complaints under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 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 Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13) and Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13);.
Holds that no separate issue arises under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention in Dangiriyevy v. Russia (no. 71383/13), Ibragimovy v. Russia (no. 78616/13) and Astamirova and Israilov v. Russia (no. 69031/14);.
71383/13.
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".