Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Violation of Art. 8 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 24.01.2008 - 38478/05
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05
• EGMR - 38478/05

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96

  FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

  MIKULIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  While the essential object of Article 8 is 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).
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 36505/02

  AUGUST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  However, even assuming that the applicant could have obtained damages in civil proceedings, the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that respect (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; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII).

 
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  However, even assuming that the applicant could have obtained damages in civil proceedings, the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that respect (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; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 07.12.1976 - 5493/72

  HANDYSIDE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  The Court will therefore examine whether Croatia, 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).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  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 Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, cited above, § 65).

• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 27821/16

  MILICEVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  The Court considers that the complaint in the present case falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 27, 5 March 2009, and A. v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, § 57, 14 October 2010), which reads as follows:.

  4149/04 and 41029/04, § 59, ECHR 2012, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, §§ 44-45, 5 March 2009.

• EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  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, 01.06.2021 - 19237/16

  ASSOCIATION ACCEPT AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  Examples include the sexual abuse of a mentally handicapped individual (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91); allegations of a physical attack against the applicant by three individuals, during which she was kicked and thrown down the stairs (see Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 47, 5 March 2009); the beating of a thirteen-year old by a grown-up man, causing multiple physical injuries (see Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 91, 11 December 2012); and the beating of an individual causing a number of injuries to her head, requiring hospitalisation (see Isakovic Vidovic v. Serbia, no. 41694/07, § 61, 1 July 2014).

 
• EGMR, 30.11.2023 - 24225/19

  GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

  The Court considers that the applicants' allegations summarised in paragraph 76 above, insofar as they concern an alleged interference with their private life on account of an assault on their physical and moral integrity motivated by hatred, fall to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention (see Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 31, 5 March 2009; R.B. v. Hungary, cited above, §§ 79-80; and Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, no. 10851/13, § 43, 17 January 2017).
• EGMR, 30.11.2010 - 2660/03

  HAJDUOVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  The Court notes in this respect that the particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection has been emphasised in a number of international instruments (see the reference to the Court's judgment in the case of Opuz at paragraph 27 above and the Court's judgments in Bevacqua, cited above, §§ 64-65, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 44-45, ECHR 2009-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND

  The Court has acknowledged the particular vulnerability of the victims of domestic violence and the need for active State involvement in their protection (see, mutatis mutandis, Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 27, ECHR 2009; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 64-65, 12 June 2008; and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 44-45, ECHR 2009-... (extracts); A v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, §§ 55-61, 14 October 2010).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10

  REMETIN v. CROATIA

  In any event the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that respect (see 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; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 36, 5 March 2009).
• EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  REMETIN v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  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, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; 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, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 45, 5 March 2009).