Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 2 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (24)

• EGMR, 30.08.2011 - 36768/09

  SARISSKA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  It is therefore for the Court to verify, ex post facto, whether the redress afforded domestically by the Constitutional Court was appropriate and sufficient, having regard to the just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004; see also Sarisska v. Slovakia, no. 36768/09, 30 August 2011; Nic Gibb v. Ireland (dec.), no. 17707/10, 25 March 2014; and Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 17707/10

  NIC GIBB v. IRELAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  It is therefore for the Court to verify, ex post facto, whether the redress afforded domestically by the Constitutional Court was appropriate and sufficient, having regard to the just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004; see also Sarisska v. Slovakia, no. 36768/09, 30 August 2011; Nic Gibb v. Ireland (dec.), no. 17707/10, 25 March 2014; and Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR, 26.04.2005 - 35242/04

  M.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  The Court has generally considered this to be dependent on all the circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the right alleged to have been breached (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 116, ECHR 2010), the reasons given for the decision (see M.A. v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 35242/04, ECHR 2005, and contrast with Jensen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 48470/99, ECHR 2001-X) and the persistence of the unfavourable consequences for the person concerned after that decision (see Freimanis and Lidums v. Latvia, nos. 73443/01 and 74860/01, § 68, 9 February 2006).

 
• EGMR, 25.11.2004 - 34368/02

  NARDONE c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  It is therefore for the Court to verify, ex post facto, whether the redress afforded domestically by the Constitutional Court was appropriate and sufficient, having regard to the just satisfaction as provided for under Article 41 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Normann v. Denmark (dec.), no. 44704/98, 14 June 2001; Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.), no. 52620/99, 20 March 2003; and Nardone v. Italy (dec.), no. 34368/02, 25 November 2004; see also Sarisska v. Slovakia, no. 36768/09, 30 August 2011; Nic Gibb v. Ireland (dec.), no. 17707/10, 25 March 2014; and Zarkovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  That means, in practice, that in order for a "genuine connection" to be established, the period of time between the death as the triggering event and the entry into force of the Convention in respect of that State must have been reasonably short (in principle, not exceeding ten years) and most of the investigative steps required by this provision must have been carried out, or ought to have been carried out, after the Convention's entry into force (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 206, ECHR 2014 (extracts), and Janowiec, cited above, §§ 146-48).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 45656/99

  CATALDO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  Only when those conditions are satisfied does the subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an application (see Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 71, ECHR 2006-V, and Cataldo v. Italy (dec.), no. 45656/99, 3 June 2004).
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  In this connection, it should be pointed out that in cases of homicide the interpretation of Article 2 as entailing an obligation to conduct an official investigation is justified not only because any allegations of such an offence normally give rise to criminal liability (see Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I), but also because often, in practice, the true circumstances of the death are, or may be, largely confined within the knowledge of State officials or authorities (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 47-49, §§ 157-64, and Ilhan, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  In this connection, the Court has held that if the infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity is not caused intentionally, the positive obligation to set up an "effective judicial system" does not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be brought in every case and may be satisfied if civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedies were available to the victims (see, for example, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII; Calvelli and Ciglio, cited above, § 51; and Mastromatteo, cited above, §§ 90 and 94-95).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  In this connection, it should be pointed out that in cases of homicide the interpretation of Article 2 as entailing an obligation to conduct an official investigation is justified not only because any allegations of such an offence normally give rise to criminal liability (see Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I), but also because often, in practice, the true circumstances of the death are, or may be, largely confined within the knowledge of State officials or authorities (see McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324, pp. 47-49, §§ 157-64, and Ilhan, cited above, § 91).
• EGMR, 24.03.2005 - 21894/93

  AKKUM AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  In addition, even if a prosecution is brought and suspects stand trial, the Court will examine whether this is a "meaningful" or serious exercise with any realistic prospects of bringing the perpetrator to account (see, mutatis mutandis, Akkum and Others v. Turkey, no. 21894/93, §§ 231, 250 and 251, ECHR 2005-II (extracts).
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 2269/06

  R. KACAPOR AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 11.09.2007 - 51967/99

  TEREN AKSAKAL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 75187/12

  ZARKOVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 20.04.2010 - 12312/05

  KIN-STIB AND MAJKIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 77938/11

  DIMITROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei
• EGMR, 05.07.2005 - 49790/99

  TRUBNIKOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.05.2006 - 60255/00

  PEREIRA HENRIQUES c. LUXEMBOURG
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 22339/03

  TUNA c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 15318/09

  GINA IONESCU c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 25165/94

  AKDENIZ v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 19.09.2017 - 66641/10

  RANDELOVIC AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO

  Given that the criminal trial is still under way, the issue to be assessed is not whether the judicial authorities, as guardians of the laws laid down to protect lives, were determined to sanction those responsible, if appropriate, but whether they had proceeded with exemplary diligence and promptness (see Mucibabic v. Serbia, no. 34661/07, § 132, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 05.04.2022 - 69517/11

  NANA MURADYAN v. ARMENIA

  The Court notes that it may, in principle, accept a lower award of compensation by the domestic authorities than it would award itself, judged in the light of the standard of living in the State concerned (see Mucibabic v. Serbia, no. 34661/07, § 119, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  It is in the interests of not only the applicant but also the efficacy of the Convention system that the domestic authorities, who are best placed to do so, act to put right any alleged breaches of the Convention (see Mucibabic v. Serbia, no. 34661/07, § 108, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 21.11.2017 - 47992/12

  SADAY v. TURKEY

  The Court notes in this connection that the application mainly concerns the death of the applicants" relative as a result of an explosion that took place in an unlicensed workshop engaging in the covert production of fireworks, which is undoubtedly a dangerous activity that may put people's safety at risk if not properly regulated and inspected (see, mutatis mutandis, Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XII, and Mucibabic v. Serbia, no. 34661/07, § 126, 12 July 2016).
• EGMR, 20.06.2017 - 57596/12

  HERAKLEOUS v. CYPRUS

  In the present case, lives were lost as a result of a dangerous activity known to and under the responsibility of the State (see, mutatis mutandis, Mucibabic v. Serbia, no. 34661/07, § 126-127, 12 July 2016, and Öneryildiz v. Turkey ([GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 69-74, ECHR 2004-XII).