Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ZDJELAR AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (10)

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  Furthermore, it is also meant to protect the authorities and other parties concerned from being left in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  Furthermore, it is also meant to protect the authorities and other parties concerned from being left in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (see Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  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, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  In so far as this complaint falls within its competence ratione temporis, the Court reiterates that while a family member of a "disappeared person" can claim to be a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, §§ 130-34, Reports 1998-III), the same principle would not usually apply to situations where the person taken into custody has later been found dead (see, for example, Tanli v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 159, ECHR 2001-III (extracts)).
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  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, 09.11.2006 - 69480/01

  LOULOUÏEV ET AUTRES c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  Given these circumstances, the Court is not persuaded that in the present case, despite its gruesome circumstances, the applicants sustained the uncertainty, anguish and distress characteristic of the specific phenomenon of disappearances (see, by contrast, Luluyev and Others v. Russia, no. 69480/01, § 115, ECHR 2006-XIII (extracts)).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 32457/04

  BRECKNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  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, 15.02.2011 - 4704/04

  PALIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  60441/13 et all, § 21, 11 March 2014; see also Palic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 4704/04, § 70, 15 February 2011 concerning complex post-conflict situations).
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  I have explained in detail my position on this issue in my separate opinions to the judgments in the cases of Janowiec and Others v. Russia ([GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, ECHR 2013) and Mocanu and Others v. Romania ([GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 11.03.2014 - 60441/13

  GÜRTEKIN AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

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

• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 78836/16

  BURSAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In previous cases where the applicants complained that the domestic courts had dismissed their claims for compensation for wartime damage as time-barred, the Court has found no breach of their right of access to a court (see Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 71593/11, § 84, 18 June 2015; and Zdjelar and Others v. Croatia, no. 80960/12, § 103, 6 July 2017).
• 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:.