Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Petrovic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 04.01.2012 - 40485/08
• EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (25)

• EGMR, 20.05.1999 - 21594/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines türkischen Staatsangehörigen durch türkische …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  Therefore, these proceedings also failed to comply with the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, having lacked both thoroughness and objectivity (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III; Mizigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, §§ 98-100, 14 December 2010; and Juozaitiene and Bikulcius v. Lithuania, nos. 70659/01 and 74371/01, § 91, 24 April 2008).
• EGMR, 14.12.2010 - 74832/01

  MIZIGÁROVÁ v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  Therefore, these proceedings also failed to comply with the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention, having lacked both thoroughness and objectivity (see, mutatis mutandis, OÄ?ur v. Turkey [GC], no. 21594/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III; Mizigárová v. Slovakia, no. 74832/01, §§ 98-100, 14 December 2010; and Juozaitiene and Bikulcius v. Lithuania, nos. 70659/01 and 74371/01, § 91, 24 April 2008).
• EGMR, 08.06.2010 - 18183/05

  KHAINDRAVA ET DZAMASHVILI c. GEORGIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  For the same reasons, there must be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation, and, in all cases, involvement of the next-of-kin to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests (see, for example, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, §§ 109 and 124, ECHR 2001-III (extracts), and Khaindrava and Dzamashvili v. Georgia, no. 18183/05, §§ 59-61, 8 June 2010).

 
• EGMR, 17.01.2002 - 32967/96

  CALVELLI ET CIGLIO c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  While an official investigation and/or a criminal trial must be regarded as furnishing the strongest safeguards to provide protection under Article 2 in cases of intentional taking of life (see Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 165, ECHR 2011; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 134, ECHR 2001-III; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V), where the allegations raise issues of negligence, the procedural obligation may come into play upon the institution of proceedings by the deceased's relatives and a civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedy may be sufficient (see Silih, cited above, § 156 and the cases referred to therein; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Powell v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, 4 May 2000).
• EGMR, 04.05.1999 - 41974/98

  KUCHERENKO contre l'UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  In this latter connection, the Court notes that the request for the protection of legality was admittedly of a discretionary character, and normally such a remedy is not considered to be effective (see Lepojic v. Serbia, no. 13909/05, § 54, 6 November 2007) and could not restart the running of the six-month limit (see, for example, Kucherenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 41974/98, 4 May 1999).
• EGMR, 11.01.2000 - 24520/94

  CARAHER contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  Referring to Caraher v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24520/94, ECHR 2000-I, the Government further submitted that the applicant could no longer claim to be the victim of any violation of the rights relied on in respect of the death of her son, since the civil courts had "acknowledged [that] the State [had] made an omission in respect of the circumstances causing the death of the applicant's son" and had, in that connection, awarded compensation almost equivalent to the settled amount in a case which had been struck out (see Petkovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 31169/08, 6 December 2011).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 35944/03

  GASPARYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 1)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  Nevertheless, situations in which a request to reopen the proceedings actually results in a reopening, or in which a request for extraordinary review is successful, may be an exception to this rule (see Gasparyan v. Armenia (no. 1), no. 35944/03, § 30, 13 January 2009 with further references), though only in relation to those Convention issues which served as a ground for such a review or reopening and were the object of examination before the extraordinary appeal body (see Gasparyan, cited above, § 32, and Berdzenishvili v. Russia (dec.), no. 31697/03, ECHR 2004-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 08.07.1999 - 23763/94

  TANRIKULU c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  In cases in which a detainee dies while in the custody of State authorities, whatever mode of investigation is employed, the mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death, irrespective of whether the alleged perpetrators are State agents, or are unknown, or even that the harm was self-inflicted (see, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101 and 103, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 149, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 69 and 74, ECHR 2002-II; and Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 30, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  In cases in which a detainee dies while in the custody of State authorities, whatever mode of investigation is employed, the mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death, irrespective of whether the alleged perpetrators are State agents, or are unknown, or even that the harm was self-inflicted (see, for example, Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], no. 23763/94, §§ 101 and 103, ECHR 1999-IV; Salman v. Turkey [GC], no 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000-VII; Tanlı v. Turkey, no. 26129/95, § 149, ECHR 2001-III (extracts); Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 69 and 74, ECHR 2002-II; and Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 30, ECHR 2004-IX).
• EGMR, 06.05.2003 - 47916/99

  MENSON contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.07.2014 - 40485/08

  While an official investigation and/or a criminal trial must be regarded as furnishing the strongest safeguards to provide protection under Article 2 in cases of intentional taking of life (see Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 55721/07, § 165, ECHR 2011; McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, § 134, ECHR 2001-III; and Menson v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 47916/99, ECHR 2003-V), where the allegations raise issues of negligence, the procedural obligation may come into play upon the institution of proceedings by the deceased's relatives and a civil, administrative or even disciplinary remedy may be sufficient (see Silih, cited above, § 156 and the cases referred to therein; Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy [GC], no. 32967/96, § 51, ECHR 2002-I; and Powell v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 45305/99, 4 May 2000).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 57671/00

  SLIMANI v. FRANCE
• EGMR, 13.06.2002 - 38361/97

  ANGUELOVA v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI
• EGMR, 14.12.2000 - 22676/93

  GÜL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.01.2004 - 31697/03

  BERDZENISHVILI v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 31169/08

  PETKOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 45305/99

  POWELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 06.11.2007 - 13909/05

  LEPOJIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 06.02.2007 - 21387/05

  BANKS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03

  GASYAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.04.2001 - 26129/95

  TANLI v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 15.04.2012 - 29520/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.12.2004 - 50385/99

  MAKARATZIS c. GRECE
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  McKERR c. ROYAUME-UNI

• EGMR, 27.08.2019 - 32631/09

  Fall Magnitski: Russland verletzte mehrfach Menschenrechte

  Referring to Petrovic v. Serbia (no. 40485/08, § 80, 15 July 2014), they stated that a civil-law remedy could not afford effective redress in their case.
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 78388/12

  MOLGA v. POLAND

  It recalls that in cases in which a detainee dies while in the custody of State authorities, the mere fact that the authorities have been informed of the death will give rise ipso facto to an obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death, irrespective of whether the alleged perpetrators are State agents, or are unknown, or even that the harm was self-inflicted (see, for example, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 105, ECHR 2000-VII; Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, §§ 69 and 74, ECHR 2002-II; Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, § 30, ECHR 2004-IX; Volk v. Slovenia, no. 62120/09, § 98, 13 December 2012; and Petrovic v. Serbia, no. 40485/08, § 74, 15 July 2014).
• EGMR, 24.03.2020 - 10959/07

  KAZAN c. TURQUIE

  Cependant, dans le cadre de cette disposition, seuls les recours normaux et effectifs peuvent être pris en compte car un requérant ne peut pas repousser le délai strict imposé par la Convention en cherchant à adresser des requêtes inopportunes ou abusives à des instances ou institutions qui n'ont pas le pouvoir ou la compétence nécessaires pour accorder une réparation effective concernant le grief tiré de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Fernie c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 14881/04, 5 janvier 2006, Beiere c. Lettonie, no 30954/05, § 38, 29 novembre 2011, et, a contrario, Hizb ut-tahrir et autres c. Allemagne (déc.), no 31098/08, §§ 58-59, 12 juin 2012, et Petrovic c. Serbie, no 40485/08, § 60, 15 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 57273/16

  CHAABAN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE

  Cependant, dans le cadre de cette disposition, seuls les recours normaux et effectifs peuvent être pris en compte car un requérant ne peut pas repousser le délai strict imposé par la Convention en cherchant à adresser des requêtes inopportunes ou abusives à des instances ou institutions qui n'ont pas le pouvoir ou la compétence nécessaires pour accorder une réparation effective concernant le grief tiré de la Convention (voir, par exemple, Fernie c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 14881/04, 5 janvier 2006, Beiere c. Lettonie, no 30954/05, § 38, 29 novembre 2011, et, a contrario, Hizb ut-tahrir et autres c. Allemagne (déc.), no 31098/08, §§ 58-59, 12 juin 2012, et Petrovic c. Serbie, no 40485/08, § 60, 15 juillet 2014).
• EGMR, 10.02.2022 - 73975/16

  A AND B v. GEORGIA

  The Court thus considers it appropriate to join this matter to the merits of the complaint made by the applicants under the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention, read together with Article 14 (compare, for instance, Petrovic v. Serbia, no. 40485/08, §§ 64 and 65, 15 July 2014, and Özcan and Others v. Turkey, no. 18893/05, § 55, 20 April 2010).