Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Art 2 (procedural and substantive) • Manifestly inadequate investigation into the killing of the applicants� husband and son by a police officer during a chase • Not shown �beyond reasonable doubt� that use of force no more than absolutely necessary
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 � 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
��������� Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer , President , ��������� Tim Eicke, ��������� Faris Vehabović, ��������� Iulia Antoanella Motoc, ��������� Branko Lubarda, ��������� Armen Harutyunyan, ��������� Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , ��������� Anne Louise Bormann , substitute judge , and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar,
the application (no. 2186/12) against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (�the Convention�) by two Armenian nationals, Mr Sergey Yengibaryan and Ms Anzhela Simonyan (�the applicants�), on 10 December 2011;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.