Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2016,69
EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,69)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12.01.2016 - 32036/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,69)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 12. Januar 2016 - 32036/13 (https://dejure.org/2016,69)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2016,69) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (11)Zitiert selbst (35)

  • EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70
    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13
    Contracting States enjoy a certain degree of discretion 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, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13
    The investigation must be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Oğur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, § 88, ECHR 1999-III).
  • EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

    Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13
    In particular, the authorities must take the steps reasonably available to them to secure evidence concerning the incident, including, inter alia, eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injuries and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death (for an example of a case concerning autopsies, see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 106, ECHR 2000-VII; for an example of a case concerning witnesses, see Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, ECHR 1999-IV, § 109; and for an example of a case concerning forensic evidence, see Gül v. Turkey, no. 22676/93, § 89, 14 December 2000).
  • EGMR, 08.12.2020 - 41317/15

    SKRPAN v. CROATIA

    The standard of expedition in such historical cases is much different from the standard applicable in recent incidents where time is often of the essence in preserving vital evidence at a scene and questioning witnesses when their memories are fresh and detailed (see Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 62, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 77209/16

    GALEA v. MALTA and 1 other application

    The Court should not act as a fourth instance and will not therefore question the judgment of the national courts, unless their findings can be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan (No. 2), cited above, § 61), provided that the proceedings as a whole were fair, as required by Article 6 § 1 (see Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007, and Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 77, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 29.11.2016 - 24221/13

    SALIBA v. MALTA

    Therefore, the Court will not in principle intervene unless the decisions reached by the domestic courts appear arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable (see Bochan, § 61, cited above), and provided that the proceedings as a whole were fair as required by Article 6 § 1 (see Khamidov v. Russia, no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007, Anđelković v. Serbia, no. 1401/08, § 24, 9 April 2013 and Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 77, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 38766/15

    MILIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    As the Court has held on numerous occasions, since such proceedings are not relevant for the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, they cannot affect the running of the six-month period in the present case (compare Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 48, 15 December 2009; Bogdanović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, § 38, 18 March 2014; Orić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, § 33, 13 May 2014; Ivančić and Dželalija v. Croatia (dec.), no. 62916/13, § 33, 15 March 2016; and Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 45, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

    TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

    The Court, being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, will examine this complaint under Article 2 of the Convention alone (compare Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 31, 12 January 2016; Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, § 52, 6 September 2016; Borojević and Others v. Croatia, no. 70273/11, § 32, 4 April 2017; M. and Others v. Croatia, no. 50175/12, § 52, 2 May 2017; Trivkanović v. Croatia, no. 12986/13, § 43, 6 July 2017; and Zdjelar and Others v. Croatia, no. 80960/12, § 51, 6 July 2017) which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:.
  • EGMR, 17.03.2026 - 57816/21

    TCHALIDZE v. GEORGIA

    The standard of expedition in such historical cases is much different from the standard applicable in recent incidents where time is often of the essence in preserving vital evidence at a scene and questioning witnesses when their memories are fresh and detailed (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 107, 5 July 2016, and, in the context of procedural obligations under Article 2, Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 62, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 09.10.2025 - 53358/21

    MAMUZIĆ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

    Rn. 38 The Court further notes that the witness statements and the items allegedly found near the place of the killing suggested that the perpetrators were members of the Croatian armed and police forces (contrast Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 63, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 15.05.2018 - 52256/15

    POLCAROVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

    The Court reiterates, at the same time, that the purpose of this rule is to promote the security of law and ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time (see Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 37, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 520/12

    BESTAS c. TURQUIE

    Toutefois, l'écoulement du temps peut inévitablement être un obstacle quant à la détermination de l'endroit où se trouve un témoin ou à l'évaluation de la fiabilité du témoignage relatif à l'incident en cause (Treskavica c. Croatie, no 32036/13, § 62, 12 janvier 2016, et Sayğı c. Turquie, no 37715/11, § 48, 27 janvier 2015).
  • EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 12986/13

    TRIVKANOVIC v. CROATIA

    In such circumstances, where the State authorities were occupied with a large number of individual investigations into the deaths of numerous individuals who had been killed during the war in Croatia, and where the progress of some of those individual investigations was rather slow, and where there was such a significant new development as the indictment of the person allegedly responsible occurred, it cannot be said that the period of some two years and three months with no apparent progress in the investigation constituted an excessive delay in respect of the lodging of the present application with the Court (compare to Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 48, 12 January 2016).
  • EGMR, 12.12.2017 - 59816/12

    VILIC v. CROATIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht