Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2011,56731
EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,56731)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24.05.2011 - 7964/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,56731)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 24. Mai 2011 - 7964/07 (https://dejure.org/2011,56731)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2011,56731) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

  • EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    Accordingly, the investigators failed to ensure that the investigation received the required level of public scrutiny or to safeguard the interests of the next of kin in the proceedings (see OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 92, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 08.01.2002 - 56413/00

    DOUGLAS-WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    This investigation should be independent, accessible to the victim's family, carried out with reasonable promptness and expedition, effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances or otherwise unlawful, and afford a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results (see Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 105-09, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Douglas-Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 56413/00, 8 January 2002).
  • EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

    PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    It is also unclear why the investigators had to wait for eight months to interview the applicants" family members (see paragraphs 47 and 48 above) and a further ten months to interview the applicants" neighbours A.M. and M.K. A further four years lapsed before the investigators interviewed another of the applicants" neighbours, L. Ya. These delays, for which there has been no explanation in the instant case, constitute a breach of the obligation to exercise exemplary diligence and promptness in dealing with such a serious crime (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 86, ECHR 2002-II).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

    BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    In so far as the Government argued that the applicants should have appealed against the decision of the Town Court, as upheld by the Supreme Court, by way of supervisory review, the Court notes, with reference to its extensive case-law, that such extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purpose of applying Article 35 of the Convention (see, among many other authorities, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

    AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments issues will arise under Article 2 and/or Article 3 (see ToÄ?cu v. Turkey, no. 27601/95, § 95, 31 May 2005, and Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, § 211, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

    LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya which have come before it (see, among many others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-VIII (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court finds that in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening.
  • EGMR, 09.11.2006 - 7615/02

    IMAKAÏEVA c. RUSSIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    The Court reiterates that in previous cases it has already found this explanation insufficient to justify the withholding of key information requested by it (see Imakayeva v. Russia, no. 7615/02, § 123, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 05.04.2007 - 74237/01

    BAYSAYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya which have come before it (see, among many others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-VIII (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court finds that in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening.
  • EGMR, 05.07.2007 - 68007/01

    ALIKHADZHIYEVA v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    Having regard to the previous cases concerning disappearances in Chechnya which have come before it (see, among many others, Bazorkina, cited above; Imakayeva, cited above; Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, ECHR 2006-VIII (extracts); Baysayeva v. Russia, no. 74237/01, 5 April 2007; Akhmadova and Sadulayeva, cited above; and Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007), the Court finds that in the context of the conflict in the Chechen Republic, when a person is detained by unidentified servicemen without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention, this can be regarded as life-threatening.
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 7964/07
    In the light of the importance of the protection afforded by Article 2, the Court must subject deprivation of life to the most careful scrutiny, taking into consideration not only the actions of State agents but also all the surrounding circumstances (see, among other authorities, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, §§ 146-47 Series A no. 324, and Avsar v. Turkey, no. 25657/94, § 391, ECHR 2001-VII (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 29431/05

    ZUBKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

    The Court notes in this connection that, according to its constant practice, an application for a supervisory review in the context of criminal proceedings has so far not been considered as a remedy to be exhausted under Article 35 § 1 (see, among many others, Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts); Maayevy v. Russia, no. 7964/07, § 81, 24 May 2011; and Chumakov v. Russia, no. 41794/04, § 125, 24 April 2012).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht