Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NARIN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  PÉLISSIER AND SASSI v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  Particular regard must be had to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II) and what is at stake for the applicant (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  Particular regard must be had to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II) and what is at stake for the applicant (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  The Government also reiterated the Court's case-law that if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this connection, the Government claimed that, even if the applicants are correct in this allegation, which they contest, they should have been aware of this situation much earlier and should not have waited for ten years to lodge their application with the Court (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this connection, the Government claimed that, even if the applicants are correct in this allegation, which they contest, they should have been aware of this situation much earlier and should not have waited for ten years to lodge their application with the Court (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).

• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

  MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  Referring to the cases of Narin v. Turkey (no. 18907/02, 15 December 2009) and Frandes v. Romania ((dec.), no. 35802/05, 17 May 2011), the Government submitted that the Court, called on to assess the diligence shown by parties in applying to it, had considered that applications could be rejected as out of time even in cases concerning continuing situations.
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Zarkovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vukovic and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 53933/11

  KÜRKUT c. TÜRKIYE

  La Cour rappelle avoir déjà rejeté des requêtes pour tardiveté lorsque les requérants avaient trop attendu ou avaient attendu sans raison apparente pour la saisir après le moment où ils s'étaient rendu compte, ou le moment où ils auraient dû se rendre compte, soit qu'aucune enquête n'avait été ouverte, soit que l'enquête menée s'était enlisée ou n'était pas effective, soit enfin qu'à l'époque considérée, quel que soit le cas de figure, il n'y avait pas la moindre chance réaliste de voir une enquête effective être conduite à l'avenir (voir, parmi beaucoup d'autres, Narin c. Turquie, no 18907/02, §§ 44-51, 15 décembre 2009, et Frandes c. Roumanie (déc.), no 35802/05, § 18, 17 mai 2011).

 
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

  KUSIC v. CROATIA

  This is because an action for damages, either to provide redress for the death or for the breach of official duty during the investigation, is not capable, without the benefit of the conclusions of a criminal investigation, of making any findings as to the identity of the perpetrators, let alone establishing their responsibility (see Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 47, 15 December 2009, and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 64, 12 June 2014).
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  In that connection, the Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the death of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, §§ 40-51, with further references, 15 December 2009; Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 54415/09, §§ 41-50, 6 March 2012; and Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, §§ 31-45, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  ABUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 58026/12

  AKIN c. TURQUIE

  Par exemple, dans certains cas, aucune enquête n'avait été ouverte, ou bien il s'agissait de l'enlisement ou de la perte d'effectivité de l'enquête, ou encore de l'absence dans l'immédiat de la moindre chance réaliste de voir une enquête effective être menée à l'avenir (voir, entre autres, Narin c. Turquie, no 18907/02, §§ 45-51, 15 décembre 2009, Aydinlar et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 3575/05, 9 mars 2010, Frandes c. Roumanie (déc.), no 35802/05, §§ 18-23, 17 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 48176/11

  TORLAK ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE

  La Cour rappelle avoir rejeté des requêtes pour tardiveté lorsque les requérants ont trop attendu, ou attendu sans raison apparente, pour la saisir, après s'être rendu compte, ou alors qu'ils auraient dû se rendre compte, de l'absence d'ouverture d'une enquête ou de l'enlisement ou de la perte d'effectivité de l'enquête menée, ainsi que de l'absence dans l'immédiat, quel que soit le cas de figure, de la moindre chance réaliste de voir une enquête effective être menée à l'avenir (voir, entre autres, Aydin et autres c. Turquie (déc), no 46231/99, 26 mai 2005, Kinis c. Turquie (déc.), no 13635/04, 28 juin 2005, Aydinlar et autres c. Turquie, no 3575/05, (déc.), 9 mars 2010, ou encore Narin c. Turquie, no 18907/02, § 51, 15 décembre 2010).
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 38766/15

  MILIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  As the Court has held on numerous occasions, since such proceedings are not relevant for the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, they cannot affect the running of the six-month period in the present case (compare Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 48, 15 December 2009; Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, § 38, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, § 33, 13 May 2014; Ivancic and Dzelalija v. Croatia (dec.), no. 62916/13, § 33, 15 March 2016; and Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 45, 12 January 2016).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 7821/07

  DOVLETUKAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 35802/05

  FRANDES c. ROUMANIE
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 32349/16

  VUJNOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 57273/16

  CHAABAN ET AUTRES c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 5096/12

  NIKOLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 51714/13

  DUROVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 2721/11

  KHARAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  FINOZHENOK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 17321/06

  AMUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13

  NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 27240/09

  GISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12

  VARTIC v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 4867/03

  GEORGESCU c. ROUMANIE