Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOGDANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOGDANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  However, special considerations may apply in exceptional cases where an applicant avails himself or relies on an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, it is appropriate to take as the start of the six-month period the date when he first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98

  MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, § 33, ECHR 2000-I).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (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, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (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, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  The Court has already held that statutory limitation periods serve several important purposes, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality, protect potential respondents from stale claims which might be difficult to counter and prevent the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past on the basis of evidence which might have become unreliable and incomplete because of the passage of time (see Stubbings and Others, cited above, § 51; see also, mutatis mutandis, Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 92, ECHR 2004-VIII, and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Land Ltd v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44302/02, §§ 68-69, ECHR 2007-X).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  Where the individual's access is limited either by operation of law or in fact, the Court will examine whether the limitation imposed impaired the essence of the right and, in particular, whether it pursued a legitimate aim and whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93; Zwiazek Nauczycielstwa Polskiego v. Poland, no. 42049/98, § 29, ECHR 2004-IX; and Szwagrun-Baurycza v. Poland, no. 41187/02, § 49, 24 October 2006).
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  GOLDER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  The Court reiterates that the procedural guarantees laid down in Article 6 secure to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the "right to a court", of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, §§ 28-36).
• EGMR, 13.07.1995 - 18139/91

  TOLSTOY MILOSLAVSKY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  It may be subject to legitimate restrictions such as statutory limitation periods, security for costs orders, etc. (see Stubbings and Others v. the United Kingdom, 22 October 1996, §§ 51-52, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV; Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, 13 July 1995, §§ 62-67, Series A no. 316-B; and Golder, cited above, § 39).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court notes that the same issue was resolved in the Bogdanovic case where the same complaint was found to be manifestly ill-founded (see Bogdanovic. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, 18 March 2014; and Oric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 78836/16

  BURSAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In previous cases where the applicants complained that the domestic courts had dismissed their claims for compensation for wartime damage as time-barred, the Court has found no breach of their right of access to a court (see Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 71593/11, § 84, 18 June 2015; and Zdjelar and Others v. Croatia, no. 80960/12, § 103, 6 July 2017).
• 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, 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, 11.06.2020 - 32349/16

  VUJNOVIC v. CROATIA

  Therefore, the relevant domestic remedy for the applicant's complaint, which would have had the potential to offer adequate redress, was a criminal investigation (compare to Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 49, 15 December 2009; see also Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, § 39, 18 March 2014, and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, § 64, 12 June 2014).