Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZARKOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14, Art. 35, Art. 37, Art. 37 Abs. 1 MRK
  Partly struck out of the list Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12

  Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in that respect but the ultimate decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 January 1975, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, Series A no. 18, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91-93, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12

  To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98

  MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12

  Furthermore, the Court must make its assessment in each case in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, § 36, ECHR 2000 I).

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  For this purpose, the Court scrutinises carefully the Government's undertakings referred to in their unilateral declaration (see Tahsin Acar, cited above, §§ 76-79 and 83-85) and, where appropriate, interprets the extent of these undertakings in the light of its case-law (see, in the context of an application concerning the State's obligations under Article 2, Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015).

  Yet the Court did not require the Government to make the relevant undertaking, as it had done in Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015), which should not be regarded as an isolated case.

• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  It is therefore for the Court to verify, ex post facto, whether the redress afforded domestically by the Constitutional Court was appropriate and sufficient, having regard to the just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004; see also Sarisska v. Slovakia, no. 36768/09, 30 August 2011; Nic Gibb v. Ireland (dec.), no. 17707/10, 25 March 2014; and Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63344/17

  ZAHTILA AND KOLETIC v. CROATIA

  This conclusion is without prejudice to the national authorities' continuing obligation to conduct an investigation in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (see Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, § 23, 9 June 2015) or to any decision the Court might take to restore the case to its list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, should the national authorities fail to fulfil that obligation.
• EGMR, 19.05.2022 - 12398/21

  VERNAY c. FRANCE

  Comme la Cour l'a déjà rappelé, s'agissant de requêtes similaires, dans trois décisions du 28 mai 2019, Bertrand et autres (déc.), no 62196/14, Renou c. France (déc.), no60073/15, et Lorin c. France (déc.), no 4626/16, cette décision ne préjuge en rien de la possibilité pour le requérant d'exercer, le cas échéant, d'autres recours au niveau national afin d'obtenir, à la lumière de l'arrêt Aycaguer précité, l'accès à une procédure permettant d'obtenir la modification du casier judiciaire concernant l'inscription de la condamnation pénale litigieuse (cf., notamment, Zarkovic et autres c. Croatie (déc.), no 75187/12, § 23, 9 juin 2015, Jeronovics c. Lettonie [GC], no 44898/10, §§ 20 et 115-118, 5 juillet 2016, Stepien c. Pologne (déc.), no 19228/07, § 78, 6 février 2018, et Trunk c. Slovénie (déc.), no 60503/15, § 32, 13 novembre 2018).
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 62196/14

  BERTRAND ET AUTRES c. FRANCE

  Cette décision ne préjuge en rien de la possibilité pour les requérants d'exercer, le cas échéant, d'autres recours au niveau national afin d'obtenir, à la lumière de l'arrêt Aycaguer précité, l'accès à une procédure permettant d'obtenir la modification du casier judiciaire concernant l'inscription de la condamnation pénale litigieuse (cf., notamment, Zarkovic et autres c. Croatie (déc.), no 75187/12, § 23, 9 juin 2015, Jeronovics c. Lettonie [GC], no 44898/10, §§ 20 et 115-118, 5 juillet 2016, Stepie?„ c. Pologne (déc.), no 19228/07, § 78, 6 février 2018, et Trunk c. Slovénie (déc.), no 60503/15, § 32, 13 novembre 2018).