Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations Article 2-1 - Life) No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Non-pecuniary damage - ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)
[DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective ...
- juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)
Sonstiges (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
(Verfahrensmitteilung)
Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
Wird zitiert von ... (26) Zitiert selbst (17)
- EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02
Opuz ./. Türkei
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
It has thus, by applying the above-cited Osman test, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act, as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57 ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 129, ECHR 2009 (killings in the context of domestic violence);, Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service)).[4] All four cases are therefore to be distinguished on this point from Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII), Opuz v. Turkey (no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009) and Van Colle v. the United Kingdom (no. 7678/09, 13 November 2012).
- EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97
Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
Article 2 may also imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 67, ECHR 2002-VIII).[3] Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, CEDH 2002-VIII; see also Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, 15 December 2009, and Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, 17 January 2012.
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
It has thus, by applying the above-cited Osman test, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act, as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57 ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 129, ECHR 2009 (killings in the context of domestic violence);, Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service)).[4] All four cases are therefore to be distinguished on this point from Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII), Opuz v. Turkey (no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009) and Van Colle v. the United Kingdom (no. 7678/09, 13 November 2012).
- EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 46846/08
[FRE]
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
A positive obligation will arise, the Court has held, where it has been established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; and Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, § 47, 17 January 2012).[3] Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, CEDH 2002-VIII; see also Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, 15 December 2009, and Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, 17 January 2012.
- EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99
BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
The Court must also be cautious about revisiting the events with the wisdom of hindsight (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 147, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)). - EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05
SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
The Court's case-law also bears witness to this fact (see BrankoTomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/08, 14 October 2010; A. v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, 14 October 2010; and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 50, 5 March 2009). - EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05
MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
In such a situation, even if the undisputed threat of suicide is taken alone into account, the Court reiterates that where State agents become aware of such a threat a sufficient time in advance, a positive obligation arises under Article 2 requiring them to prevent that threat from materialising, by any means reasonable and feasible in the circumstances (compare Mikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4762/05, § 115, 17 December 2009). - EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 41590/06
[ENG]
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
Against the above background, the Court finds that in the present case it is not necessary to go into the issue of the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act (see paragraph 107 above), or to deal with the question of the scope of the states" positive obligations in cases concerning random violence out of the practical control or possible reasonable knowledge of the domestic authorities (see Acet v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41590/06, 29 June 2010, and Vosylius and Vosyliene v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61974/11, 3 September 2013). - EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 61974/11
VOSYLIUS AND VOSYLIENE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
Against the above background, the Court finds that in the present case it is not necessary to go into the issue of the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act (see paragraph 107 above), or to deal with the question of the scope of the states" positive obligations in cases concerning random violence out of the practical control or possible reasonable knowledge of the domestic authorities (see Acet v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41590/06, 29 June 2010, and Vosylius and Vosyliene v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61974/11, 3 September 2013). - EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91
Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12
The Court reiterates at the outset that Article 2 enshrines one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 147, Series A no. 324). - EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86
- EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99
PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93
MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93
KILIÇ v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98
VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95
CELIKBILEK v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 43903/09
YABANSU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 41237/14
Italien muss Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt entschädigen
Elle rappelle toutefois que l'absence de mise en œuvre de mesures raisonnables qui auraient eu une chance réelle de changer le cours des événements ou d'atténuer le préjudice causé suffit à engager la responsabilité de l'Etat (E. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 33218/96, § 99 26 novembre 2002 ; Opuz, précité § 136; Bljakaj et autres c. Croatie, no 74448/12, § 124, 18 septembre 2014). - EGMR, 08.07.2021 - 33056/17
TKHELIDZE v. GEORGIA
Not even a disciplinary probe into the alleged police inaction was opened, despite the fact of the applicant's having complained to the body in charge of disciplinary supervision of police officers (see paragraph 21 above and contrast Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 123, 18 September 2014), and no steps were taken to train the police officers on how to respond properly to allegations of domestic violence for the future (see, mutatis mutandis, Lovyginy v. Ukraine, no. 22323/08, § 99, 23 June 2016). - EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 35983/14
SMILJANIC v. CROATIA
While the Court cannot speculate whether the matters would have turned out differently if the authorities had acted otherwise and ensured that the relevant regulatory framework was effectively implemented in practice with respect to D.M.'s repeated unlawful conduct, the relevant test under Article 2 cannot require it to be shown that "but for" the failing or omission of the authorities the death would not have occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014).The Court has also found that the obligation to afford general protection against potential lethal acts was engaged in respect of the danger emanating from a person with a history of violence, unlawful possession of firearms and alcohol abuse, who was apparently mentally disturbed and had been under the control of the police on the day of the killing committed by him (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 121, 18 September 2014).
- EGMR, 17.02.2026 - 95/24
KOFFI v. BULGARIA
The Court has thus held that the obligation to afford general protection against potentially lethal acts shall be engaged in respect of the danger emanating from a person with a history of violence (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 121, 18 September 2014).Rn. 5 Since then, the Mastromatteo rationale has been applied to attacks by other dangerous individuals, such as "a person with a history of [domestic] violence" who assaulted his former wife and her lawyer (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, 18 September 2014) and a school shooter who, shortly before the attack, had come into contact with the police, who had failed to revoke his gun license (see Kotilainen and Others v. Finland, no. 62439/12, 17 September 2020).
- EGMR, 16.07.2026 - 28273/23
S.T. v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
To engage responsibility under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court does not require it to be shown that "but for" the failing or omission of the authorities the killing would not have occurred (see Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 136, ECHR 2009, and Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014). - EGMR, 03.04.2025 - 56114/18
N.D. c. SUISSE
Tout en saluant l'initiative spontanée du policier A., elle relève l'absence tant d'une évaluation adéquate du risque pour la vie de la requérante que de mesures opérationnelles qui auraient eu une chance réelle de changer le cours des événements ou d'atténuer le préjudice causé (Talpis, précité, § 121, Opuz, précité, § 136, Bljakaj et autres c. Croatie, no 74448/12, § 124, 18 septembre 2014, et Luca, précité, § 74). - EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 37801/16
RIBCHEVA v. BULGARIA and 2 other applications
The second obligation, which has so far been held to arise in relation to (a) the release of violent prisoners on leave or on licence, (b) the supervision of a mentally disturbed person known to be predisposed to violence, and (c) a terrorist group suspected of preparing to attack unknown civilian targets in a given area, is to take steps to protect members of the public who cannot be identified in advance from a real and imminent risk of lethal acts emanating from such people (see Mastromatteo, cited above, §§ 69-79; Maiorano and Others, cited above, § 107; Choreftakis and Choreftaki, cited above, §§ 48 and 50-51, all in relation to violent prisoners; Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, §§ 108-11 and 121, 18 September 2014, in relation to a mentally disturbed person predisposed to violence; and Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. - EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 9077/18
Y AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
Mrs V.'s third written complaint, made about an hour after that emergency call, was not acted upon on the evening it was received or the following day, when she was killed by Mr V. (see paragraphs 30 and 32 above, and compare Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, §§ 125-27, 18 September 2014). - EGMR, 17.09.2020 - 62439/12
KOTILAINEN AND OTHERS v. FINLAND
The Court has also found that the obligation to afford general protection against potential lethal acts was engaged in respect of the danger emanating from a person with a history of violence, unlawful possession of firearms and alcohol abuse, who was apparently mentally disturbed and had been under the control of the police on the day of the killing committed by him (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 121, 18 September 2014). - EGMR, 12.10.2021 - 8663/08
[ENG]
However, there is no evidence that anything was ever done in response to Sergey Boychenko's signs of mental distress and suicidal intentions to determine the seriousness of his state and the risk of suicide (see Perevedentsevy, cited above, § 100; Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 115, 18 September 2014; compare with Şahinkuşu v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38287/06, § 58, 21 June 2016). - EGMR, 03.12.2024 - 57507/19
SVRTAN v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14
DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA
- EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 69546/12
CEVRIOGLU v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 06.03.2025 - 35950/20
HASANI v. SWEDEN
- EGMR, 21.10.2020 - 46598/06
BRANKO TOMASIC ET AUTRES CONTRE LA CROATIE ET 1 AUTRE AFFAIRE
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14
KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12
DIMOV v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 20620/10
[FRE]
- EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09
DEMIRTAS v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 13.11.2025 - 25866/21
PICIG AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
- EGMR, 02.06.2020 - 53304/18
RAYNOVI v. BULGARIA
- EGMR, 18.03.2025 - 23926/20
SIMSEK ET AUTRES c. TÜRKIYE
- EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09
[ENG]
- EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09
VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA and 4 other applications
- EGMR, 26.11.2019 - 41130/18
VERRI v. ITALY
- EGMR, 22.10.2019 - 4955/15
M.M. v. CROATIA
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".