Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KABUROV v. BULGARIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 35, Protokoll Nr. 1 Art. 1 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (13)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23657/94

  ÇAKICI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  Although it has recognised the standing of the victim's next-of-kin to submit an application where the victim had died or disappeared in circumstances which were alleged to engage the responsibility of the State (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 92, ECHR 1999-IV, and Bazorkina v. Russia (dec.), no. 69481/01, 15 September 2005), in cases where the alleged violation of the Convention was not closely linked to disappearances or deaths giving rise to issues under Article 2, the Court's approach has been more restrictive.
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 48335/99

  SANLES SANLES contre l'ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  The Court interprets the concept of "victim" autonomously and irrespective of domestic concepts such as those concerning an interest or capacity to act (see Sanles Sanles v. Spain, (dec.), no. 48335/99, 26 October 2000), even though the Court should have regard to the fact that an applicant had been a party to the domestic proceedings (see Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 48, ECHR 2009).
• EGMR, 03.03.2005 - 54723/00

  BRUDNICKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  In other cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has been prepared to recognise victim status and standing of close relatives to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987, and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 95 and 97-98, 8 April 2008) or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005-II; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 31-33, 21 September 2010), or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005; and the above-cited Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Gradinar, § 97, and Micallef [GC], § 25).

 
• EGMR, 08.03.2005 - 24790/04

  FAIRFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  However, the issues involved are different where the direct victim dies before bringing his or her complaint before the Court (see Fairfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24790/04, ECHR 2005-VI).
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 55929/00

  MARIE-LOUISE LOYEN ET AUTRE c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  In other cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has been prepared to recognise victim status and standing of close relatives to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987, and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 95 and 97-98, 8 April 2008) or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005-II; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 31-33, 21 September 2010), or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005; and the above-cited Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Gradinar, § 97, and Micallef [GC], § 25).
• EGMR, 13.07.2006 - 17671/02

  RESSEGATTI c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  In other cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has been prepared to recognise victim status and standing of close relatives to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987, and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 95 and 97-98, 8 April 2008) or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005-II; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 31-33, 21 September 2010), or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005; and the above-cited Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Gradinar, § 97, and Micallef [GC], § 25).
• EGMR, 27.07.2006 - 69481/01

  BAZORKINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  Although it has recognised the standing of the victim's next-of-kin to submit an application where the victim had died or disappeared in circumstances which were alleged to engage the responsibility of the State (see Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 92, ECHR 1999-IV, and Bazorkina v. Russia (dec.), no. 69481/01, 15 September 2005), in cases where the alleged violation of the Convention was not closely linked to disappearances or deaths giving rise to issues under Article 2, the Court's approach has been more restrictive.
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 7170/02

  GRADINAR v. MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  In other cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has been prepared to recognise victim status and standing of close relatives to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987, and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 95 and 97-98, 8 April 2008) or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005-II; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 31-33, 21 September 2010), or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005; and the above-cited Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Gradinar, § 97, and Micallef [GC], § 25).
• EGMR, 25.11.2008 - 36919/02

  ARMONIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  In other cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has been prepared to recognise victim status and standing of close relatives to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987, and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 95 and 97-98, 8 April 2008) or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005-II; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 31-33, 21 September 2010), or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005; and the above-cited Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Gradinar, § 97, and Micallef [GC], § 25).
• EGMR, 21.09.2010 - 34147/06

  POLANCO TORRES ET MOVILLA POLANCO c. ESPAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 9035/06

  In other cases concerning complaints under Articles 5, 6 or 8 the Court has been prepared to recognise victim status and standing of close relatives to submit an application where they have shown a moral interest in having the late victim exonerated of any finding of guilt (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, no. 10300/83, § 33, 25 August 1987, and Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, §§ 95 and 97-98, 8 April 2008) or in protecting their own reputation and that of their family (see Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, §§ 27-31, ECHR 2005-II; Armoniene v. Lithuania, no. 36919/02, § 29, 25 November 2008; and Polanco Torres and Movilla Polanco v. Spain, no. 34147/06, § 31-33, 21 September 2010), or where they have shown a material interest on the basis of the direct effect on their patrimonial rights (see Ressegatti v. Switzerland, no. 17671/02, §§ 23-25, 13 July 2006; Marie-Louise Loyen and Bruneel v. France, no. 55929/00, §§ 29-30, 5 July 2005; and the above-cited Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Gradinar, § 97, and Micallef [GC], § 25).

• EGMR, 15.10.2020 - 40495/15

  Polizeiliche Tatprovokation (Begriff: mittelbare Tatprovokation - Bestimmtsein …

  Die Beteiligung des Beschwerdeführers an den innerstaatlichen Verfahren ist nur eines von verschiedenen maßgeblichen Kriterien (…siehe N../. Deutschland, 25. August 1987, Rdnr. 33, Serie A Nr. 123; Gradinar./. Moldawien, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 7170/02, Rdnrn. 95-103, 8. April 2008;… Micallef, a.a.O., Rdnrn 48-49; Kaburov./. Bulgarien (Entsch.), Individualbeschwerde Nr. 9035/06, Rdnrn. 53 und 58, 19. Juni 2012, und Centre for Legal Resources im Namen von Valentin Câmpeanu, a.a.O., Rdnr. 100).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 47848/08

  CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN CÂMPEANU v. ROMANIA

  Quant à la participation du requérant à la procédure interne, la Cour ne l'a considérée que comme un critère pertinent parmi d'autres (Nölkenbockhoff, § 33, Micallef, §§ 48-49, Polanco Torres et Movilla Polanco, § 31, et Gradinar, §§ 98-99, tous précités ; Kaburov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 9035/06, §§ 52-53, 19 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 47039/11

  HRISTOZOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  The Court's approach to cases introduced by applicants themselves and only continued by their relatives after their deaths differs from its approach to cases in which the application has been lodged after the death of the direct victim (see Fairfield and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 24790/04, 8 March 2005; Biç and Others v. Turkey, no. 55955/00, § 20, 2 February 2006; Direkçi v. Turkey (dec.), no. 47826/99, 3 October 2006; Gradinar v. Moldova, no. 7170/02, § 91, 8 April 2008; Dvorácek and Dvorácková v. Slovakia, no. 30754/04, § 39, 28 July 2009; and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, § 52, 19 June 2012).

 
• EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 60103/11

  STEPANIAN c. ROUMANIE

  Ces requérants doivent montrer un intérêt moral fort, mis à part l'éventuel intérêt pécuniaire qu'ils pourraient avoir à l'issue des procédures internes, ou d'autres raisons impérieuses, par exemple un intérêt général important qui exige que l'affaire soit examinée (Boaca et autres c. Roumanie, no 40355/11, §§ 45-50, 12 janvier 2016 et Kaburov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 9035/06, § 56, 19 juin 2012).

  Lorsque la violation alléguée de la Convention ne se rattache pas étroitement au décès de la victime directe, le requérant doit établir l'existence d'un intérêt moral solide ou d'autres motifs impérieux nécessitant la poursuite de l'examen des griefs (Sanles Sanles c. Espagne (déc.), no 48335/99, CEDH 2000-XI, Kaburov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 9035/06, § 56, 19 juin 2012, et Centre de ressources juridiques au nom de Valentin Câmpeanu, précité, § 100).

• EGMR, 17.12.2020 - 73544/14

  MILE NOVAKOVIC v. CROATIA

  The Court observes that while it has held that certain rights under the Convention are strictly personal and thus non-transferable, it has done so where a direct victim died before bringing his or her complaint before the Court (see Fairfield v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24790/04, ECHR 2005-VI; Sanles Sanles v. Spain, (dec.), no. 48335/99, 26 October 2000; and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, § 52, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 30.11.2017 - 37283/13

  STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY

  The applicants" participation in the domestic proceedings has been found to be one of several relevant criteria when assessing their status as victims (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 48-49, ECHR 2009; and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, §§ 52-53, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 26562/07

  TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The applicant's participation in the domestic proceedings has been found to be only one of several relevant criteria (see Nölkenbockhoff v. Germany, 25 August 1987, § 33, Series A no. 123; Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 48-49, ECHR 2009; and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, §§ 52-53, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 15.04.2014 - 8933/05

  TOMASZEWSCY c. POLOGNE

  Pour qu'un requérant puisse se prétendre victime d'une violation de la Convention, il doit pouvoir démontrer qu'il a été directement affecté par la mesure incriminée (Sanles Sanles c. Espagne (déc.), no 48335/99, CEDH 2000-XI, Kaburov c. Bulgarie (déc.), no 9035/06, §§ 51-53, 19 juin 2012).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 40355/11

  BOACA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Such applicants must show either a strong moral interest, besides the mere pecuniary interest in the outcome of the domestic proceedings, or other compelling reasons, such as an important general interest which required their case to be examined (see Lambert and Others v. France [GC], no. 46043/14, § 90, ECHR 2015 (extracts); and Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, § 56, 19 June 2012, and Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, §§ 53-55, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 04.11.2021 - 62161/14

  KHOJOYAN AND VARDAZARYAN v. AZERBAIJAN

  In that context, the Court observes that, in so far as Mr Khojoyan survived his detention (see paragraph 34 below), the complaint lodged under Article 2 of the Convention resembles the complaints relating to ill-treatment under Article 3. As concerns the latter, the Court reiterates that due to the strictly personal nature of the right under Article 3 of the Convention, applicants who complain about treatment concerning exclusively their late relative must show a strong moral interest, besides the mere pecuniary interest in the outcome of the domestic proceedings, or other compelling reasons, such as an important general interest which requires their case to be examined (see, for example, Kaburov v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 9035/06, § 57, 19 June 2012).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 81165/17

  BOUROS ET AUTRES c. GRÈCE
• EGMR, 11.09.2012 - 76512/11

  GENGOUX c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 21.10.2014 - 55401/07

  SOTIROVA c. BULGARIE