Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETRIE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 14+3, Art. 14, Art. 14+8, Art. 8, Art. 13 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 29703/05

  However, the Court's case-law indicates that the procedural obligation under Article 2, and by extension, Article 3, require the State itself to launch an appropriate and effective investigation into alleged breaches which is capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the perpetrators (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 113, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 29703/05

  The Court is satisfied therefore that the national authorities have acknowledged the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66; Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238 at § 34 and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000, unreported).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 29703/05

  The Court is satisfied therefore that the national authorities have acknowledged the breach of the Convention and afforded redress (Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, § 66; Lüdi v. Switzerland, judgment of 15 June 1992, Series A no. 238 at § 34 and Schlader v. Austria (dec.), no. 31093/96, 7 March 2000, unreported).

• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35738/03

  SAPEYAN v. ARMENIA

  Since Article 35 § 1 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to seize the Court before his position in connection with his complaint has been finally settled at the domestic level (see Petrie and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 29703/05, 6 February 2007), it means that an applicant is required under that Article to seize the Court once his position in connection with his complaint has been finally settled and the reopening of a case on unrelated grounds will not affect the finality of the settlement in respect of that particular issue.
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35944/03

  GASPARYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 1)

  Since Article 35 § 1 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to seize the Court before his position in connection with his complaint has been finally settled at the domestic level (see Petrie and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 29703/05, 6 February 2007), it means that an applicant is required under that Article to seize the Court once his position in connection with his complaint has finally been settled and the reopening of a case on unrelated grounds will not affect the finality of the settlement in respect of that particular issue.
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 31553/03

  AMIRYAN v. ARMENIA

  Since Article 35 § 1 cannot be interpreted in a manner which would require an applicant to seize the Court before his position in connection with his complaint has been finally settled at the domestic level (see Petrie and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 29703/05, 6 February 2007), it means that an applicant is required under that Article to seize the Court once his position in connection with his complaint has finally been settled and the reopening of a case on unrelated grounds will not affect the finality of the settlement in respect of that particular issue.
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 40535/14

  STRLEKAR v. SLOVENIA

  The Court's case-law indicates that while normally the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies, where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect or prejudice on the applicant (see, for example, Petrie and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 29703/05, 6 February 2007, and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.