Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VRABEL v. SLOVAKIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 17 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  The Court takes the view that in cases such the present one, where no issue arises under the substantive aspect of Article 2, where there is no involvement of State agents and where the domestic procedure was found adequate from the point of view of the State's procedural obligation under Article 2, any issue relating to compensation falls to be examined under Article 13 of the Convention, taken together with Article 2 (see also Zavoloka v. Latvia, no. 58447/00, § 36, 7 July 2009 and, mutatis mutandis, Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 123, 129 and 130, ECHR 2001-III, with further references).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  However, in the light of its above conclusions in respect of his grievances under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant cannot be regarded as having an arguable claim for the purpose of Article 13 of the Convention (see also Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 31, Series A no. 172; Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; Sünük v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9610/03, 27 November 2007; or Tonka v. Turkey (dec.), no. 11380/02, 5 June 2007).
• EGMR, 22.05.2001 - 33592/96

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  The assessment of whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is normally carried out with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001).

• EGMR, 22.10.2002 - 57984/00

  ANDRASIK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  57984/00, 60237/00, 60242/00, 60679/00, 60680/00, 68563/01, 60226/00, 22 October 2002).
• EGMR, 07.01.2003 - 57420/00

  YOUNGER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  However, in the light of its above conclusions in respect of his grievances under Article 2 of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant cannot be regarded as having an arguable claim for the purpose of Article 13 of the Convention (see also Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1990, § 31, Series A no. 172; Younger v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 57420/00, ECHR 2003-I; Sünük v. Turkey (dec.), no. 9610/03, 27 November 2007; or Tonka v. Turkey (dec.), no. 11380/02, 5 June 2007).
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 42994/05

  FURDIK v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  of the Civil Code are set out in Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, decision of 13 June 2006 and judgment of 31 May 2007, §§ 33-35, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts), and Furdík v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008.
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 56195/00

  KRUMPEL AND KRUMPELOVA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  It is true that after that date he could not lodge the same claim against the same person in the context of civil proceedings (see Krumpel and Krumpelová v. Slovakia, no. 56195/00, §§ 30-31 and 39, 5 July 2005).
• EGMR, 30.11.2006 - 12793/02

  SEREGINA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 77928/01

  Finally, there is no right under Article 6 of the Convention to have criminal proceedings instituted against a third person (see, for example, Seregina v. Russia, no. 12793/02, § 99, 30 November 2006).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  The Court is very reluctant to criticise States under the substantive limb of Article 2 in cases involving the victims of sports accidents (Furdík v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008; Molie v. Romania (dec.), no. 13754/02, 1 September 2009; Vrábel v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 77928/01, 19 January 2010; Koceski v. the Former Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 41107/07, 22 October 2013; and Cavit Tınarlıoğlu v. Turkey, no. 3648/04, §§ 104-06, 2 February 2016), of accidents on board boats (Leray and Others v. France (dec.), no. 44617/98, 16 January 2001) or trains (Bone, cited above), or of road-traffic accidents (Zavoloka v. Latvia, no. 58447/00, § 39, 7 July 2009).
• EGMR, 02.02.2016 - 3648/04

  CAVIT TINARLIOGLU c. TURQUIE

  Il y va de l'obligation positive que cette disposition implique dans la première phrase de son premier paragraphe, à savoir l'obligation pour les États de prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires à la protection de la vie des personnes relevant de leur juridiction (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Boudaïeva et autres c. Russie, nos 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 et 15343/02, § 128, CEDH 2008, et Anna Todorova c. Bulgarie, no 23302/03, § 72, 24 mai 2011, voir aussi les décisions Bône c. France (déc.), no 69869/01, 1er mars 2005, Furdik c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 42994/05, 2 décembre 2008, Molie c. Roumanie (déc.), no 13754/02, § 39, 1er septembre 2009, et Vrábel c. Slovaquie (déc.), no 77928/01, 19 janvier 2010), y compris celles nécessaires, plus généralement, à la sauvegarde de la sûreté des individus dans les zones publiques (Gökdemir c. Turquie (déc.), no 66309/09, § 14, 19 mai 2015, Ciechońska, précité, § 67).