Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FERGEC v. CROATIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  FERGEC v. CROATIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  However, if the infringement of the right to life or physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the State may meet its obligation by affording victims a civil-law remedy, either alone or in conjunction with a criminal-law one, enabling any responsibility of the individuals concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress, such as an order for damages, to be obtained (see, among other authorities, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VII, and Anna Todorova, cited above, § 73).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 22277/93

  ILHAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  In this connection the degree and type of force used and the intention or aim behind the use of force may, among other factors, be relevant in assessing whether a particular action resulting in bodily injury but not death is such as to bring the facts within the scope of the safeguard afforded by Article 2 of the Convention, having regard to the object and purpose of that Article (see Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, § 76, ECHR 2000-VII; and Makaratzis, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  The Court reiterates that Article 2 does not solely concern deaths resulting from the use of force by agents of the State but also, in the first sentence of its first paragraph, lays down a positive obligation on States to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction (see, for example, L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 36, and Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 54, ECHR 2002-II).

 
• EGMR, 03.11.2011 - 28096/04

  ANTONOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  This includes an obligation to have in place an effective independent judicial system securing the availability of legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (see Saso Gorgiev, cited above, § 43, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 229-239, ECHR 2016; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011, and Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 44, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  The Court further notes that there is no indication that he used any special powers, tools or information connected to his service either (see, by contrast, urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 75, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Saso Gorgiev, cited above, §§ 48-52).
• EGMR, 22.02.2011 - 24329/02

  SOARE ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  In a number of other cases, the Court considered that Article 2 was applicable to non-fatal shootings where the applicants" lives had been put at serious risk as a result of the conduct of the security forces or third persons (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Soare and Others v. Romania, no. 24329/02, §§ 108-109, 22 February 2011; Trévalec v. Belgium, no. 30812/07, §§ 55-61, 14 June 2011; Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Yotova v. Bulgaria, no. 43606/04, § 69, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 43606/04

  YOTOVA c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  In a number of other cases, the Court considered that Article 2 was applicable to non-fatal shootings where the applicants" lives had been put at serious risk as a result of the conduct of the security forces or third persons (see, for example, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 49-55, ECHR 2004-XI; Soare and Others v. Romania, no. 24329/02, §§ 108-109, 22 February 2011; Trévalec v. Belgium, no. 30812/07, §§ 55-61, 14 June 2011; Saso Gorgiev v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 49382/06, § 29, ECHR 2012 (extracts); and Yotova v. Bulgaria, no. 43606/04, § 69, 23 October 2012).
• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  This includes an obligation to have in place an effective independent judicial system securing the availability of legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (see Saso Gorgiev, cited above, § 43, and Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, §§ 229-239, ECHR 2016; Anna Todorova v. Bulgaria, no. 23302/03, § 72, 24 May 2011, and Antonov v. Ukraine, no. 28096/04, § 44, 3 November 2011).
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 45104/05

  KOTELNIKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.05.2017 - 68516/14

  Given the circumstances of the present case, therefore, the Court accepts the national courts" findings that D.M. acted as an ordinary private individual not vested with any official powers (compare Kotelnikov v. Russia, no. 45104/05, § 93, 12 July 2016).

• EGMR, 07.11.2023 - 63543/09

  DURDAJ AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

  Even where there may be obstacles or difficulties which prevent progress in an investigation or a trial in a particular situation, a prompt response by the authorities is vital in maintaining public confidence in their adherence to the rule of law and in preventing any appearance of collusion in, or tolerance of, unlawful acts (see ? ilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 195, 9 April 2009, and Fergec v. Croatia, no. 68516/14, § 38, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR, 17.01.2023 - 84523/17

  DARAIBOU v. CROATIA

  Indeed, the Court has emphasised on many occasions that Article 2 of the Convention may come into play even if a person whose right to life was allegedly breached did not die (see, among many other authorities, Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, § 55, ECHR 2004-XI; and Fergec v. Croatia, no. 68516/14, §§ 21-24, 9 May 2017 and the cases cited therein).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 78836/16

  BURSAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Section 48 of the Act on Service in Military Forces (Zakon o slu?¾bi u oru?¾anim snagama, Official Gazette no. 23/1995) is quoted in Fergec v. Croatia (no. 68516/14, § 12, 9 May 2017).
• EGMR - 25182/22 (anhängig)

  NOVOSEL AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, was the manner in which the legal mechanisms were applied in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (see Ciecho?„ska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, § 67, 14 June 2011; Ilbeyi Kemaloglu and Meriye Kemaloglu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, §§ 42-43, 10 April 2012; Bilbija et Bla?¾evic v. Croatia, no. 62870/13, § 110, 12 January 2016; Fergec v. Croatia, no. 68516/14, § 40, 9 May 2017, and Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 235-238, 19 December 2017)?.