Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09, 32431/08, 45886/07 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) Violation of ... - Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE
Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
Partiellement irrecevable Violation de l'article 2 - Droit à la vie (Article 2-1 - Enquête efficace) (Volet procédural) Non-violation de l'article 3 - Interdiction de la torture (Article 3 - Traitement dégradant Traitement inhumain) (Volet matériel) Violation de ...
Sonstiges (3)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
Anca Mocanu and Others v. Romania
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Videoaufzeichnung der mündlichen Verhandlung)
Mocanu and Others v. Romania
[02.10.2013]
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)
[FRE]
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09, 32431/08, 45886/07
- EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09
- EGMR, 07.06.2018 - 10865/09
Wird zitiert von ... (4) Neu Zitiert selbst (18)
- EGMR, 24.05.2011 - 33810/07
ASSOCIATION
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
The Court reiterates that it had already dismissed a similar objection in its judgment in the case of Association "21 December 1989" and Others (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 119-125, 24 May 2011).In the instant case, the Court notes that the applicant has previously lodged another application before it, registered as no. 33810/07, raising, under Article 8, a complaint similar to that raised in the context of the present application, which is registered as number 45886/07. The previous application, adducing evidence which has also been submitted in the instant case, resulted in the finding of a violation of Article 8 (see Association "21 December 1989" and Others, cited above, §§ 161-176).
The Court must therefore determine whether, in the present case, the application is "substantially the same" as the matter submitted to it in application no. 33810/07.
The Court has ruled that, in the event of widespread use of lethal force against the civilian population during anti-Government demonstrations preceding the transition from a totalitarian regime to a more democratic system, the Court cannot accept that an investigation has been effective where it is terminated as a result of the statutory limitation of criminal liability, when it is the authorities themselves who have remained inactive (see Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 144, 24 May 2011).
Such an investigation may not end with prescription (see Association "21 December 1989" and Others v. Romania, nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, § 144, 24 May 2011).
- EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95
LABITA c. ITALIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
According to the Government, this conduct by the applicant in response to the alleged threats was such as to prove the absence of any attitude on the part of the State agents that was likely to arouse any "fear" or "anguish" (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).Such an investigation, as with one under Article 2, should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see, inter alia, Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, § 102, Reports 1998-VIII; Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV; Çamdereli v. Turkey, cited above, §§ 36-37; and Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, cited above, § 81).
- EGMR, 25.10.2017 - 19506/05
EBCIN AGAINST TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
In addition, this requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition in the obligation to carry out an investigation exists even where it concerns acts committed by private individuals (see Ebcin v. Turkey, no. 19506/05, § 56, 1 February 2011).
- EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 30979/96
FRYDLENDER c. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
The Court points out that it has concluded on many occasions, in cases raising issues similar to those raised here, that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, ECHR 2000-VII, and Saileanu v. Romania, no. 46268/06, § 50, 2 February 2010). - EGMR, 29.06.2007 - 15472/02
Folgerø u. a. ./. Norwegen
- EGMR, 24.07.2003 - 46133/99
SMIRNOVA c. RUSSIE
- EGMR, 22.03.2001 - 34044/96
Schießbefehl
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
In the context of States which have gone through a transition to a democratic regime, it is legitimate for a State governed by the rule of law to bring criminal proceedings against persons who have committed crimes under a former regime (see, mutatis mutandis, Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, §§ 80-81, ECHR 2001-II). - EGMR, 19.12.2006 - 43124/98
TÜRKMEN c. TURQUIE
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
Lastly, the Court has stated that it is not in principle acceptable that the conduct and outcome of such proceedings are hindered, inter alia, by expiry of the time-limit for criminal prosecution on account of judicial procrastination, incompatible with the requirement of promptness and reasonable diligence implicit in this context (see Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 76, ECHR 2006-XII; Türkmen v. Turkey, no. 43124/98, 19 December 2006; Hüseyin Simsek v. Turkey, no. 68881/01, § 67, 20 May 2008, and Serban, cited above, § 80). - EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95
McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
In all cases, however, the next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 115, ECHR 2001-III). - EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 33750/03
YETER v. TURKEY
Auszug aus EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 10865/09
Secondly, an award of compensation to the applicant is required where appropriate (see Vladimir Romanov v. Russia, cited above, § 79, and, mutatis mutandis, Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 98, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, and Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 53, 2 November 2004 (both in the context of Article 13)) or, at least, the possibility of seeking and obtaining compensation for the damage which the applicant sustained as a result of the ill-treatment (compare, mutatis mutandis, Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, § 56, 20 December 2007 (concerning a breach of Article 2); Çamdereli v. Turkey, cited above, § 29; and Yeter v. Turkey, no. 33750/03, § 58, 13 January 2009). - EGMR, 17.07.2008 - 28433/02
CAMDERELI v. TURKEY
- EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98
M.C. c. BULGARIE
- EGMR, 20.05.2008 - 68881/01
HÜSEYIN SIMSEK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 02.02.2010 - 46268/06
SAILEANU c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 10.01.2012 - 11014/05
SERBAN c. ROUMANIE
- EGMR, 04.10.2007 - 32772/02
Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VGT) ./. Schweiz
- EGMR, 24.07.2008 - 41461/02
VLADIMIR ROMANOV v. RUSSIA
- EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94
Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 44814/07
KADRI BUDAK c. TURQUIE
- EGMR, 16.12.2014 - 49037/09
DMITRIJEVS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 09.12.2014 - 27979/08
ABOLINS v. LATVIA
- EGMR, 13.01.2015 - 45458/12
VER EECKE ET REULEN c. BELGIQUE
Les principes généraux relatifs à l'exigence de l'épuisement des voies de recours internes au sens de l'article 35 § 1 de la Convention ont récemment été rappelés par la Cour dans l'arrêt Vuckovic et autres c. Serbie ([GC], no 17153/11, §§ 69-77, 25 mars 2014) auxquels la Cour renvoie pour les besoins de la présente affaire (voir également Mocanu et autres c. Roumanie [GC], nos 10865/09, 45886/07 et 32431/08, §§ 220-225, CEDH 2014 (extraits)).