Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  M. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  M. v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 60441/13

  GÜRTEKIN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  60441/13, 68206/13 and 68667/13, § 21, 11 March 2014; see also Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4704/04, § 70, 15 February 2011 concerning complex post-conflict situations).

  60441/13 etc., § 25, 11 March 2014).

• EGMR, 15.02.2011 - 4704/04

  PALIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  60441/13, 68206/13 and 68667/13, § 21, 11 March 2014; see also Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4704/04, § 70, 15 February 2011 concerning complex post-conflict situations).

  Rumour and gossip are a dangerous basis on which to base any steps that can potentially devastate a person's life (cf. Palic v. Bosnia and Hercegovina, no. 4704/04, § 65, 15 February 2011, where the Court held that the investigation had been effective despite the fact that there had been no convictions; Gürtekin and Others, cited above, § 27; Mujkanovic and Others v. Bosnia and Hercegovina (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  Compliance with the State's procedural obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity and willingness to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Ghimp and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32520/09, § 43, 30 October 2012; and Jelic, cited above, § 90).

 
• EGMR, 30.10.2012 - 32520/09

  GHIMP AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  Compliance with the State's procedural obligations under Article 2 requires the domestic legal system to demonstrate its capacity and willingness to enforce criminal law against those who have unlawfully taken the life of another (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 160, ECHR 2005-VII; Ghimp and Others v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 32520/09, § 43, 30 October 2012; and Jelic, cited above, § 90).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 32457/04

  BRECKNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  However, where events took place far in the past, due to the lapse of time, the level of urgency may have diminished; the immediacy of required investigative steps in the aftermath of an incident is likely to be absent (see Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 79-81, 27 November 2007).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  The object and purpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection of individual human beings require that Article 2 be interpreted and applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective (see, among many other authorities, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 109, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 09.06.2005 - 55723/00

  FADEÏEVA c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  As to the costs and expenses, the Court has to establish first whether the costs and expenses indicated by the applicants" representative were actually incurred and, second, whether they were necessary (see McCann and Others, cited above, § 220, and Fadeyeva v. Russia, no. 55723/00, § 147, ECHR 2005-IV).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context (see Yasa v. Turkey, 2 September 1998, §§ 102-104, Reports 1998-VI; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, §§ 106-107, ECHR 2003-III).

• EGMR, 14.11.2023 - 1049/17

  NIKA v. ALBANIA

  The Court being master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of a case, considers that the issues raised in the present case should be examined solely from the perspective of Article 2 of the Convention (compare Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, §§ 107-09, 12 June 2014, and M. and Others v. Croatia, no. 50175/12, § 52, 2 May 2017) which reads as follows:.
• 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; Cindric and Be?.lic v. Croatia, no. 72152/13, § 52, 6 September 2016; Borojevic and Others v. Croatia, no. 70273/11, § 32, 4 April 2017; M. and Others v. Croatia, no. 50175/12, § 52, 2 May 2017; Trivkanovic 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:.