Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2012,55182
EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55182)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11.12.2012 - 29525/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55182)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 11. Dezember 2012 - 29525/10 (https://dejure.org/2012,55182)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2012,55182) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    REMETIN v. CROATIA

    Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
    Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

Verfahrensgang

 
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 ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (11)

  • EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

    Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 22 and 23; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 150 and 152; Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, § 65, 12 June 2008; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 45).
  • EGMR, 25.01.2000 - 34979/97

    WALKER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, amongst other authorities, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I).
  • EGMR, 07.02.2002 - 53176/99

    MIKULIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    While the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in effective "respect" for private and family life and these obligations may involve the adoption of measures in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves (see, mutatis mutandis, X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, §§ 23-24, Mikulic v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-I and 27; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 44).
  • EGMR, 11.09.2002 - 57220/00

    MIFSUD contre la FRANCE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    The purpose of Article 35 is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to the Court (see, for example, Mifsud v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 57220/00, § 15, ECHR 2002-VIII).
  • EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 36505/02

    AUGUST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    In any event the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that respect (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 36, 5 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

    M.C. c. BULGARIE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    In any event the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that respect (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 36, 5 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

    BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    The Court also reiterates that the requirements contained in Article 35 § 1 concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies and the six-month period are closely interrelated, since not only are they combined in the same Article, but they are also expressed in a single sentence whose grammatical construction implies such correlation (see Hatjianastasiou v. Greece, no. 12945/87, Commission decision of 4 April 1990, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 20.07.2004 - 47940/99

    BALOGH v. HUNGARY

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    To be effective, a remedy must be capable of resolving directly the impugned state of affairs (see Balogh v. Hungary, no. 47940/99, § 30, 20 July 2004).
  • EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

    SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    In any event the Court is inclined to believe that effective deterrence against attacks on the physical integrity of a person requires efficient criminal-law mechanisms that would ensure adequate protection in that respect (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, § 27, Series A no. 91; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; and M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 50, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 36, 5 March 2009).
  • EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

    DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

    Auszug aus EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10
    The Court considers that the applicant, owing to his age, may be considered to fall within the group of "vulnerable individuals" entitled to State protection (see A. v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, § 22, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VI; and ÄurÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 109, ECHR 2011 (extracts)).
  • EGMR, 08.11.2011 - 15526/10

    V.D. v. CROATIA

  • EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

    KUSIC v. CROATIA

    In that connection, the Court has already held in cases concerning ill-treatment, where the State authorities also have an obligation to act of their own motion, that the rights of victims guaranteed by the domestic law on criminal procedure, such as, in the case of Croatia, the right to ask for information about the steps taken by a State Attorney in connection with the criminal complaint and to lodge a complaint with the higher State Attorney if the subordinate State Attorney has failed to adopt a decision on a criminal complaint within six months (see Tadic v. Croatia, no. 10633/15, §§ 32 and 43, 23 November 2017), and, for instance, the possibility of lodging a criminal complaint against the State officials involved in the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant's complaint of a violent attack by another individual (see Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, §§ 73-74, 11 December 2012), should not be understood as imposing an obligation on victims to use them in the context of the exhaustion of domestic remedies (ibid.).

    In cases against Croatia concerning the procedural aspect of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention, the Court, noting the inconclusive practice of the Constitutional Court as regards the admissibility of complaints concerning ineffective investigations, did not hold it against the applicants if they had afforded the Constitutional Court the opportunity to remedy the alleged failures (see Bajic v. Croatia, no. 41108/10, § 69, 13 November 2012 and Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 84, 11 December 2012), or if they had not turned to the Constitutional Court before lodging their application with the Court (see ? korjanec v. Croatia, no. 25536/14, § 48, 28 March 2017).

  • EGMR, 31.03.2016 - 30808/11

    A, B AND C v. LATVIA

    As to the Government's argument concerning the civil proceedings, effective deterrence of the acts such as those alleged in the present case is indispensable and it can be achieved only by applying criminal-law provisions in practice through the conduct of an effective investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, K.U. v. Finland, cited above, § 43, and Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 76, 11 December 2012).

    In Remetin v. Croatia a minor had been slapped and kicked by an adult and the Court, noting that the minor belonged to the group of "vulnerable individuals", considered that such acts of violence required the adoption of positive measures in the sphere of criminal law and effective application of the criminal-law mechanism (see Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, § 91, 11 December 2012).

  • EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

    REMETIN v. CROATIA (No. 2)

    The Court notes that in a number of cases against Croatia concerning the State's procedural obligation to investigate acts of violence, it has already rejected the same objections raised by the Government in the case at hand (see Sandra Jankovic, cited above, §§ 35-36; Beganovic, cited above § 56; ÄurÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 67, ECHR 2011 (extracts); D.J. v. Croatia, no. 42418/10, §§ 63-65, 24 July 2012; and Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, §§ 73-77, 11 December 2012).
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