Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2018,53337
EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16 (https://dejure.org/2018,53337)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.09.2018 - 29753/16 (https://dejure.org/2018,53337)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. September 2018 - 29753/16 (https://dejure.org/2018,53337)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2018,53337) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 7864/06

    CAKIR v. CYPRUS

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 133, ECHR 2009, Çakir v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010, Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 55, 12 June 2014, he found that the "critical date" had been 13 January 1966, the date on which the United Kingdom had recognised the right of every citizen to petition this Court in relation to alleged infringements of their Convention rights.

    Such an obligation on the part of the authorities to take investigative measures may be triggered when a plausible, credible allegation, piece of evidence or item of information comes to light which is relevant to the identification and eventual prosecution or punishment of those responsible (see Gutiérrez Dorado and Dorado Ortiz v. Spain (dec.), no. 30141/09, §§ 39-41, 27 March 2012; Çakir v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010; and Brecknell cited above, §§ 66-72).

    This position was also adopted in Cakir v. Cyprus (dec.), 7864/06, 29 April 2010, in which the Court expressly considered whether it had jurisdiction ratione temporis by reference to the date that Cyprus had accepted the right of individual petition, rather than the earlier date on which the Convention entered into force; and in Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 55, 12 June 2014, where, even though the two dates were the same, the Court nevertheless referred to the "critical date" in ? ilih as the date of "the acceptance by Slovenia of the right of individual petition".

  • EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

    [ENG]

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    55508/07 and 29520/09, 16 April 2012, it considered itself bound by Re Kerr and Re McCaughey.

    55508/07 and 29520/09, ECHR 2013, it found that the "critical date" had been either September 1953, when the United Kingdom ratified the Convention, or 23 October 1953, when it was extended to the Federation of Malaya.

    55508/07 and 29520/09, § 132, ECHR 2013).

  • EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

    JELIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 133, ECHR 2009, Çakir v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010, Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 55, 12 June 2014, he found that the "critical date" had been 13 January 1966, the date on which the United Kingdom had recognised the right of every citizen to petition this Court in relation to alleged infringements of their Convention rights.

    This position was also adopted in Cakir v. Cyprus (dec.), 7864/06, 29 April 2010, in which the Court expressly considered whether it had jurisdiction ratione temporis by reference to the date that Cyprus had accepted the right of individual petition, rather than the earlier date on which the Convention entered into force; and in Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 55, 12 June 2014, where, even though the two dates were the same, the Court nevertheless referred to the "critical date" in ? ilih as the date of "the acceptance by Slovenia of the right of individual petition".

  • EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 30141/09

    GUTIERREZ DORADO AND DORADO ORTIZ v. SPAIN

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    Such an obligation on the part of the authorities to take investigative measures may be triggered when a plausible, credible allegation, piece of evidence or item of information comes to light which is relevant to the identification and eventual prosecution or punishment of those responsible (see Gutiérrez Dorado and Dorado Ortiz v. Spain (dec.), no. 30141/09, §§ 39-41, 27 March 2012; Çakir v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010; and Brecknell cited above, §§ 66-72).

    In fact, the only Article 2 case in which the two dates were different, and the Court nevertheless found the date the Convention entered into force to be the "critical date", is Gutierrez Dorado and Dorado Ortiz v. Spain (dec.), no. 30141/09, 27 March 2012.

  • EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

    BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    However, while further evidence came to light thereafter, it merely corroborated the account that the applicants always believed, and which had already been given considerable support by the statements of the soldiers in 1969-70. Given that applicant relatives are expected to take steps to keep track of the progress of an investigation into a suspicious death (see Mocanu, cited above, § 272; see also 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), in the present case the applicants should have been aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation as early as the 1970s, and it cannot, therefore, be said that the present application was lodged "with due expedition".
  • EGMR, 10.12.1982 - 7604/76

    FOTI ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    The Article 6 cases referred to all identify the "critical date" as the date on which the State recognised the right of individual petition (see Humen v. Poland [GC], no. 26614/95, §§ 58-59, 15 October 1999; Foti and Others v. Italy, 10 December 1982, § 53, Series A no. 56; and Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, 6 December 1988, §§ 60, 61 and 84, Series A 146), with the exception of Harutyounian v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 48-50, 28 June 2007, which refers only to "the date of the Convention's entry into force".
  • EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

    ARMANI DA SILVA c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    It does not appear to be in dispute that, were the events at Batang Kali to be repeated today, within the territorial jurisdiction of the respondent State, it would be under an obligation to conduct an Article 2 compliant investigation capable of leading to the establishment of the facts, a determination of whether the force used was or was not justified in the circumstances, and of identifying and - if appropriate - punishing those responsible (see, for example, Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 233, ECHR 2016).
  • EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

    BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    However, while further evidence came to light thereafter, it merely corroborated the account that the applicants always believed, and which had already been given considerable support by the statements of the soldiers in 1969-70. Given that applicant relatives are expected to take steps to keep track of the progress of an investigation into a suspicious death (see Mocanu, cited above, § 272; see also 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), in the present case the applicants should have been aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation as early as the 1970s, and it cannot, therefore, be said that the present application was lodged "with due expedition".
  • EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

    LABITA c. ITALIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    The Court further considers that the reference to "procedural acts" must be understood in the sense inherent in the procedural obligation under Article 2 or, as the case may be, Article 3 of the Convention, namely acts undertaken in the framework of criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings which are capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible or to an award of compensation to the injured party (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV, and McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, 27 September 1995, § 161, Series A no. 324).
  • EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

    McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.09.2018 - 29753/16
    Around this time, a surviving relative complained to this Court, which found a violation of the procedural limb of Article 2 on account of shortcomings in the investigation (McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, ECHR 2001-III).
  • EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

    McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  • EGMR, 11.04.2023 - 41630/22

    DOWNES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    While the "critical date" for the purposes of a Convention complaint was 14 January 1966, that being the date on which the United Kingdom accepted the right of individual petition (see Chong and Others v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 29753/16, §§ 84-90, 11 September 2018), for the purposes of the HRA it would have to be 2 October 2000, being the date that the Act entered into force.
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht