Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JERONOVICS c. LETTONIE

  Exceptions préliminaires jointes au fond et rejetées (Article 34 - Victime);Violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Enquête efficace) (Volet procédural);Préjudice moral - réparation (Article 41 - Préjudice moral;Satisfaction équitable) ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13 MRK
  [ENG]

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)

  Jeronovics v. Latvia

  [01.07.2015]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 44898/10
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

Wird zitiert von ... (9)Neu Zitiert selbst (47)

• EGMR, 26.08.2003 - 59493/00

  WITHEY contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  He reiterated that in the present case the reopening of the criminal proceedings based on sections 655 to 657 of the Criminal Procedure Law was not to be regarded as "an extraordinary remedy" (he referred to Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X), but in fact appeared to be the only remedy available to him by which to obtain redress for the breach of his rights enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention.

  The Court also reiterates that, according to its established case-law, an application for the reopening of proceedings or the use of similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X, and H. v. Iceland, cited above, with further references).

  "The Court also reiterates that, according to its established case-law, an application for the reopening of proceedings or the use of similar extraordinary remedies cannot, as a general rule, be taken into account for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see, for instance, Withey v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 59493/00, ECHR 2003-X, and H. v. Iceland, cited above, with further references).

• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12

  ZARKOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  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, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02

  Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  However, they stressed that the majority of cases in which the Court had acknowledged that a retrial or the reopening of a case would be an appropriate way of redressing the violation had concerned proceedings which gave rise to breaches of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention and which had been decisive for the applicant concerned (the Government referred to Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, § 89, ECHR 2009, and Davydov v. Russia, no. 18967/07, § 27, 30 October 2014).

  The present case is not, as I see it, a case where a subsequent application raises or supposedly raises a new issue in relation to a previous application, as for example in Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009); nor is it a case of a continuing violation divisible into temporal parts for which compensation is adjudged separately, as in Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), or a case where the time element, being relevant to a proper investigation, is singled out and dealt with separately before the examination of other aspects that are still pending in an ongoing investigation, as in McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 43098/09, ECHR 2013).

 
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  Thus, where no effective remedy is available to an applicant, the time-limit expires six months after the date of the acts or measures about which he or she complains (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00 et seq., 10 January 2002).
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 13677/03

  KOMANICKY v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  This standing case-law concerns not only Article 6 complaints (as in Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI; Komanicky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; and Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  The present case is not, as I see it, a case where a subsequent application raises or supposedly raises a new issue in relation to a previous application, as for example in Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) ([GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2009); nor is it a case of a continuing violation divisible into temporal parts for which compensation is adjudged separately, as in Ivantoc and Others v. Moldova and Russia (no. 23687/05, 15 November 2011), or a case where the time element, being relevant to a proper investigation, is singled out and dealt with separately before the examination of other aspects that are still pending in an ongoing investigation, as in McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom (no. 43098/09, ECHR 2013).
• EGMR, 02.11.2006 - 23543/02

  VOLOKHY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  In such a situation the six-month period could be calculated from the time when the applicant becomes aware, or should have become aware, of these circumstances (see, among other authorities, Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey, (dec.) no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; Volokhy v. Ukraine, no. 23543/02, § 37, 2 November 2006; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 17.12.2002 - 21287/02

  PRYSTAVSKA contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  The pursuit of remedies which do not satisfy the requirements of Article 35 § 1 will not be considered by the Court for the purposes of establishing the date of the "final decision" or calculating the starting point for the running of the six-month rule (see Prystavska v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21287/02, 17 December 2002; Sapeyan v. Armenia, no. 35738/03, § 21, 13 January 2009; and Tucka v. the United Kingdom (no. 1) (dec.), no. 34586/10, § 14, 18 January 2010).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  Finally, it ensures that, in so far as possible, matters are examined while they are still fresh, before the passage of time makes it difficult to ascertain the pertinent facts and renders a fair examination of the question at issue almost impossible (see Kelly v. the United Kingdom, no. 10626/83, Commission decision of 7 May 1985, Decisions and Reports (DR) 42, p. 205; Baybora and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 77116/01, 22 October 2002; Denisov v. Russia (dec.), no. 33408/03, 6 May 2004; and Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.) no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009).
• EGMR, 06.07.2010 - 5980/07

  ÖCALAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  This standing case-law concerns not only Article 6 complaints (as in Fischer v. Austria (dec.), no. 27569/02, ECHR 2003-VI; Komanicky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 13677/03, 1 March 2005; and Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 5980/07, 6 July 2010).
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 13216/05

  CHIRAGOV ET AUTRES c. ARMÉNIE
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.01.2011 - 34586/10

  TUCKA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 1)
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 27569/02

  FRANZ FISCHER contre l'AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 22339/03

  TUNA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 07.11.2000 - 49859/99

  REZGUI contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 77116/01

  BAYBORA and OTHERS v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 21.12.2000 - 30873/96

  EGMEZ c. CHYPRE
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2011 - 23687/05

  IVANTOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 06.05.2004 - 33408/03

  DENISOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  EGMEZ v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE
• EKMR, 07.05.1985 - 10626/83

  KELLY v. the UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.02.2015 - 22251/08

  BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 29.09.2005 - 25149/03

  Rechtssache V. H. gegen die NIEDERLANDE
• EGMR, 16.07.2002 - 56547/00

  P., C. ET S. c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 13.05.2008 - 10583/02

  J. R. F gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 08.04.2004 - 71503/01

  ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 12.05.2000 - 35394/97

  Menschenrechte: Schutz der Privatsphäre, Faires Verfahren
• EGMR, 18.07.2006 - 53507/99

  SWEDISH TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION v. SWEDEN
• EGMR, 17.06.2008 - 8810/03

  KARADUMAN ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 09.10.2007 - 39559/02

  STARK AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
• EGMR, 09.01.2013 - 21722/11

  OLEKSANDR VOLKOV c. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 22.03.2007 - 59519/00

  STAROSZCZYK v. POLAND
• EGMR, 24.06.2008 - 16999/02

  KAPITONOVS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND
• EGMR, 22.04.2010 - 40984/07

  FATULLAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 11.07.2000 - 20869/92

  DIKME c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 13.07.2000 - 39221/98

  SCOZZARI ET GIUNTA c. ITALIE
• EGMR, 28.08.2007 - 41484/04

  KLADIVIK AND KASIAR v. SLOVAKIA
• EGMR, 30.10.2014 - 18967/07

  DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA

• BVerfG, 13.02.2019 - 2 BvR 2136/17

  Zur Wiederaufnahme eines Strafverfahrens nach einer gütlichen Einigung vor dem …

  Vielmehr muss eine einseitige Erklärung bestimmte inhaltliche Anforderungen erfüllen (vgl. EGMR (GK), Tahsin Acar v. Türkei, Urteil vom 6. Mai 2003, Nr. 26307/95, §§ 75 ff.; Jeronovics v. Lettland, Urteil vom 5. Juli 2016, Nr. 44898/10, § 64; Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT v. Ukraine, Urteil vom 5. Oktober 2017, Nr. 1006/07, §§ 27 f.) und die Achtung der Menschenrechte darf keine Fortsetzung der Prüfung der Beschwerde gebieten (Art. 37 Abs. 1 Satz 2 EMRK).
• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 58718/15

  STÜKER v. GERMANY

  Die maßgeblichen allgemeinen Grundsätze bezüglich einseitiger Erklärungen wurden in den Rechtssachen Jeronovics./. Lettland ([GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44898/10, Rdnrn. 64-70, 5. Juli 2016) und Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT./. Ukraine (…Individualbeschwerde Nr. 1006/07, Rdnr. 27-33, 5. Oktober 2017) zusammengefasst.
• EGMR, 26.07.2018 - 35778/11

  DRIDI v. GERMANY

  Die maßgeblichen allgemeinen Grundsätze bezüglich einseitiger Erklärungen wurden jüngst in den Rechtssachen Jeronovics./. Lettland ([GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44898/10, Rdnrn. 64-71, ECHR 2016) und Aviakompaniya A.T.I., ZAT./. Ukraine (…Individualbeschwerde Nr. 1006/07, Rdnr. 27-33, 5. Oktober 2017) zusammengefasst.

 
• EGMR, 24.09.2019 - 46026/16

  KEMPKES v. GERMANY

  Zu diesem Zweck berücksichtigt der Gerichthof die in seiner Rechtsprechung festgelegten Grundsätze zu einseitigen Erklärungen, insbesondere das Urteil in der Rechtssache Tahsin Acar (…siehe Tahsin Acar./. Türkei (prozessuale Einreden) [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 26307/95, Rdnr. 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; siehe auch Jeronovics./. Lettland ([GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 44898/10, Rdnrn. 64-71, ECHR 2016).
• EGMR, 30.03.2017 - 35589/08

  NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA

  The Court reiterates at the outset that it has a double role in respect of applications lodged under Article 34 of the Convention: (i) to render justice in individual cases by way of recognising violations of an injured party's rights and freedoms under the Convention and Protocols thereto and, if necessary, by way of affording just satisfaction and (ii) to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted in the Convention, thereby contributing in those ways to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting Parties (see, mutatis mutandis, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 26, ECHR 2003-IX, and Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 109, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 03.10.2017 - 30204/08

  MISHINA c. RUSSIE

  Dans son arrêt récent Jeronovics c. Lettonie ([GC], no 44898/10, CEDH 2016), qui concernait des allégations de mauvais traitements infligés par des agents de l'État et l'effectivité de l'enquête menée sur ces allégations, la Cour a confirmé le principe formulé au paragraphe 84 de l'arrêt Tahsin Acar précité, cette fois-ci sous l'angle du volet procédural de l'article 3 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 29.09.2020 - 47271/16

  AMBROSIO c. ITALIE

  Lorsqu'un requérant a tenté d'utiliser une voie de recours qui ne satisfait pas aux exigences de l'article 35 § 1, le temps pris pour ce faire n'empêche pas le délai de six mois de courir (Jeronovics c. Lettonie [GC], no 44898/10, § 75, 5 juillet 2016), ce qui peut conduire au rejet de la requête pour non-respect de ce délai (Rezgui c. France (déc.), no 49859/99, 7 novembre 2000; Prystavska c. Ukraine (déc.), no 21287/02, CEDH 2002-X ; Sheidl c. Ukraine (déc.), no 3460/03, 25 mars 2008 ; Ulyanov c. Ukraine (déc.), no 16472/04, 5 octobre 2010 ; et Traina c. Portugal (déc.), no 59431/11, 21 mars 2017).
• EGMR, 12.01.2017 - 34140/07

  KIRINS v. LATVIA

  However, the remedy required by Article 13 must be "effective" in practice as well as in law (see Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 107, 5 July 2016).
• EGMR, 05.10.2017 - 1006/07

  AVIAKOMPANIYA A.T.I., ZAT v. UKRAINE

  It will depend on the particular circumstances whether the unilateral declaration offers a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 74-77, ECHR 2003-VI, and, for a recent review of the Court's case-law and practice in the area of unilateral declarations, Jeronovics v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, §§ 64-71, ECHR 2016).