Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GEPPA v. RUSSIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect) No violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (15)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8532/06

  In particular, when a detainee dies in suspicious circumstances, an "official and effective investigation" capable of establishing the causes of death and identifying and punishing those responsible must be carried out of the authorities' own motion (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 74, ECHR 2002-II).
• EGMR, 18.06.2002 - 25656/94

  ORHAN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.02.2011 - 8532/06

  As regards the allegations of ill-treatment, the Court reiterates that, in assessing evidence, it adopts the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt" (see Orhan v. Turkey, no. 25656/94, § 264, ECHR 2002).

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  The applicable general principles were summarised in Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania ([GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 130-31, ECHR 2014); Karsakova v. Russia (no. 1157/10, §§ 46-49, 27 November 2014); Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06, §§ 68-72, 3 February 2011); and Slimani v. France (no. 57671/00, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 15509/12

  KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE

  That is the case, for instance, where a person dies in custody in suspicious circumstances (even where the apparent cause of death is a medical condition), which, as a rule, raises the question of whether the State has complied with its positive obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 30 and 34, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Kats and Others, cited above, § 115; Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 71, 3 February 2011; and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 87, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 20.05.2021 - 13527/18

  LAPSHIN v. AZERBAIJAN

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 70, 3 February 2011; and Karsakova v. Russia, no. 1157/10, § 48, 27 November 2014).

 
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 24132/12

  KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The applicable general principles were set out in the cases of Karsakova v. Russia (no. 1157/10, §§ 46-49, 27 November 2014); Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06, §§ 68-72, 3 February 2011); and Slimani v. France, (no. 57671/00, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 04.05.2017 - 47095/09

  MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 70, 3 February 2011; and Karsakova v. Russia, no. 1157/10, § 48, 27 November 2014).
• EGMR, 10.09.2020 - 69460/12

  SHURIYYA ZEYNALOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  As a general rule, the mere fact that an individual dies in suspicious circumstances while in custody should raise an issue as to whether the State has complied with its obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 27, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 70, 3 February 2011; and Karsakova v. Russia, no. 1157/10, § 48, 27 November 2014).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 14908/11

  BURAKOVA v. UKRAINE

  The applicable general principles regarding the State's obligation to protect persons" life in detention were summarised in Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania ([GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 130-31, ECHR 2014); Slimani v. France (no. 57671/00, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)); Kats and Others v. Ukraine (no. 29971/04, §§ 103-04, 18 December 2008); Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06, §§ 68-72, 3 February 2011); and Karpylenko v. Ukraine (no. 15509/12, §§ 79-80, 11 February 2016).
• EGMR, 28.11.2017 - 26586/08

  IBRAGIMOV v. RUSSIA

  The applicable general principles were set out in the cases of Karsakova v. Russia (no. 1157/10, §§ 46-49, 27 November 2014); Geppa v. Russia (no. 8532/06, §§ 68-72, 3 February 2011); and Slimani v. France, (no. 57671/00, §§ 27-32, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts)).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 51497/08

  NAUMOV v. RUSSIA

  The provisions of the domestic law establishing legal avenues for complaints about the quality of medical services are cited in Reshetnyak v. Russia (no. 56027/10, §§ 35-46, 8 January 2013), and Dirdizov v. Russia (no. 41461/10, §§ 47-61, 27 November).
• EGMR, 17.12.2013 - 25776/05

  DIMITROVI v. BULGARIA

  That is the case, for instance, where a person dies in custody in suspicious circumstances - even where the apparent cause of death is a medical condition - which, as a rule, raises the question whether the State has complied with its positive obligation to protect that person's right to life (see Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, §§ 30 and 34, ECHR 2004-IX (extracts); Kats and Others v. Ukraine, no. 29971/04, § 115, 18 December 2008; Geppa v. Russia, no. 8532/06, § 71, 3 February 2011; and Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, § 87, 22 November 2011).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 60246/11

  RADCHENKO v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 04.02.2020 - 39415/15

  ARENDARCZUK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 49626/07

  TIKHOMIROVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 14.02.2017 - 24421/11

  KARAKHANYAN v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.06.2017 - 59705/12

  SERGEYEVA AND PROLETARSKAYA v. RUSSIA