Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ISAKOVIC VIDOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Isakovic Vidovic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ISAKOVIC VIDOVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07
• EGMR, 14.06.2017 - 41694/07

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  From the ratification date onwards, however, the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention, meaning that all subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  Further, even assuming that the applicant could have obtained damages in civil proceedings from the respondent State itself and have done so in the absence of a prior criminal conviction of P.V. (see paragraphs 34, 37 and 38 above), the Court is of the opinion that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal law mechanisms capable of ensuring adequate protection (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 36, where the applicant suffered similar or arguably even lesser injuries compared to the applicant in the present case).
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 36505/02

  AUGUST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  Further, even assuming that the applicant could have obtained damages in civil proceedings from the respondent State itself and have done so in the absence of a prior criminal conviction of P.V. (see paragraphs 34, 37 and 38 above), the Court is of the opinion that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal law mechanisms capable of ensuring adequate protection (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 36, where the applicant suffered similar or arguably even lesser injuries compared to the applicant in the present case).

 
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  The Court will therefore examine whether Serbia, in handling the applicant's case, has been in breach of its positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 46).
• EKMR, 08.09.1997 - 30229/96

  J. M.F. ET AUTRES contre le PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  From the ratification date onwards, however, the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention, meaning that all subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49669/07

  P.M. v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  The Court may, however, also have regard to the facts prior to the ratification inasmuch as they could be considered to have created a continuous situation extending beyond that date or may be relevant for the understanding of facts occurring thereafter (see, Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia, no. 36500/05, § 110, 13 October 2009; see also, mutatis mutandis, Zorica Jovanovic v. Serbia, no. 21794/08, § 49, ECHR 2013; Silih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 159, 9 April 2009; and P.M. v. Bulgaria, no. 49669/07, §§ 56-58, 24 January 2012).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 150 and 152; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 45, 5 March 2009).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 29813/96

  ALMEIDA GARRETT, MASCARENHAS FALCAO AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  From the ratification date onwards, however, the State's alleged acts and omissions must conform to the Convention, meaning that all subsequent facts fall within the Court's jurisdiction even where they are merely extensions of an already existing situation (see, for example, YaÄ?cı and Sargın v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 40, Series A no. 319-A, and Almeida Garrett, Mascarenhas Falcão and Others v. Portugal, nos. 29813/96 and 30229/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 41694/07

  The Court recalls that even though the essential object of Article 8 is, indeed, to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for private and family life and these obligations may involve the adoption of measures in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 23-24, and Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-I and 27).