Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ANAMARIA-LOREDANA ORASANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 33810/07

  ASSOCIATION

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are similar to those in Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011).

  The Court has already defined its jurisdiction ratione temporis in similar cases (see Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 114-118, 24 May 2011; and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, §§ 207-211, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), concluding that it was competent to examine complaints relating to the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigations into the events of December 1989 when the majority of the proceedings and the most important procedural measures were carried out after the Convention's entry into force in respect of Romania.

• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  It must then examine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the applicant did everything that could reasonably be expected of him or her to exhaust domestic remedies (see Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 59, ECHR 2000-VII, with further references).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).

 
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  This is not an obligation of result, but of means (see Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, § 96, 4 May 2001, and Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, § 139, ECHR 2002-IV).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  They cannot leave it to the initiative of the next-of-kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures (McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 111, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 193-196, ECHR 2014 (extracts).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  From this perspective, the Court is not persuaded that the criminal-law remedies nominally indicated by the Government as available to the applicants would have been capable of altering to any significant extent the course of the investigation that was made (see Alecu and Others, cited above, § 41; see also, mutatis mutandis, Tanrikulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, § 110, ECHR 1999-IV).
• EGMR, 18.05.2004 - 67208/01

  REHÁK v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 02.05.2006 - 5667/02

  KÉRÉTCHACHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 18.01.2005 - 74153/01

  POPOV v. MOLDOVA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.11.2017 - 43629/13

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as an abuse of the right of individual application under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention if, among other reasons, it was knowingly based on untrue facts (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X; Rehak v. Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004; Popov v. Moldova (no. 1), no. 74153/01, § 48, 18 January 2005; and Kerechashvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 30054/96

  KELLY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 02.12.2008 - 21447/03

  PREDESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 19.06.2006 - 23130/04

  Menschenrechtskonvention : Unzulässigkeit der Beschwerde wegen Missbrauchs des …
• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 25101/05

  M. P. u. a. gegen Deutschland
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 2912/11

  KOWAL v. POLAND