Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 34, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim) Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations Article 2-1 - Life) No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) Non-pecuniary damage - ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] Zusammenfassung durch das Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Neu Zitiert selbst (17)

• EGMR, 24.10.2002 - 37703/97

  Verantwortung des Staates für Mord durch beurlaubte Gefangene; Verpflichtung des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  Article 2 may also imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual (see Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 67, ECHR 2002-VIII).

  [3] Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, CEDH 2002-VIII; see also Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, 15 December 2009, and Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, 17 January 2012.

• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 46846/08

  CHOREFTAKIS ET CHOREFTAKI c. GRECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  A positive obligation will arise, the Court has held, where it has been established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk (see Osman, cited above, § 116; and Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, § 47, 17 January 2012).

  [3] Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, CEDH 2002-VIII; see also Maiorano and Others v. Italy, no. 28634/06, 15 December 2009, and Choreftakis and Choreftaki v. Greece, no. 46846/08, 17 January 2012.

• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 7678/09

  VAN COLLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  It has thus, by applying the above-cited Osman test, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act, as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57 ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 129, ECHR 2009 (killings in the context of domestic violence);, Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service)).

  [4] All four cases are therefore to be distinguished on this point from Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII), Opuz v. Turkey (no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009) and Van Colle v. the United Kingdom (no. 7678/09, 13 November 2012).

 
• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  It has thus, by applying the above-cited Osman test, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act, as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57 ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 129, ECHR 2009 (killings in the context of domestic violence);, Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service)).

  [4] All four cases are therefore to be distinguished on this point from Osman v. the United Kingdom (28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII), Opuz v. Turkey (no. 33401/02, ECHR 2009) and Van Colle v. the United Kingdom (no. 7678/09, 13 November 2012).

• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 61974/11

  VOSYLIUS AND VOSYLIENE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  Against the above background, the Court finds that in the present case it is not necessary to go into the issue of the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act (see paragraph 107 above), or to deal with the question of the scope of the states" positive obligations in cases concerning random violence out of the practical control or possible reasonable knowledge of the domestic authorities (see Acet v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41590/06, 29 June 2010, and Vosylius and Vosyliene v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61974/11, 3 September 2013).
• EGMR, 29.06.2010 - 41590/06

  ACET v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  Against the above background, the Court finds that in the present case it is not necessary to go into the issue of the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act (see paragraph 107 above), or to deal with the question of the scope of the states" positive obligations in cases concerning random violence out of the practical control or possible reasonable knowledge of the domestic authorities (see Acet v. Turkey (dec.), no. 41590/06, 29 June 2010, and Vosylius and Vosyliene v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 61974/11, 3 September 2013).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  The Court's case-law also bears witness to this fact (see BrankoTomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/08, 14 October 2010; A. v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, 14 October 2010; and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 50, 5 March 2009).
• EGMR, 17.03.2005 - 50196/99

  BUBBINS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  The Court must also be cautious about revisiting the events with the wisdom of hindsight (see Bubbins v. the United Kingdom, no. 50196/99, § 147, ECHR 2005-II (extracts)).
• EGMR, 17.12.2009 - 4762/05

  MIKAYIL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  In such a situation, even if the undisputed threat of suicide is taken alone into account, the Court reiterates that where State agents become aware of such a threat a sufficient time in advance, a positive obligation arises under Article 2 requiring them to prevent that threat from materialising, by any means reasonable and feasible in the circumstances (compare Mikayil Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 4762/05, § 115, 17 December 2009).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.09.2014 - 74448/12

  It has thus, by applying the above-cited Osman test, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential target of a lethal act, as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57 ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009, and Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 129, ECHR 2009 (killings in the context of domestic violence);, Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kılıç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III, and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service)).
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 43903/09

  YABANSU ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22492/93

  KILIÇ v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 31.05.2005 - 27693/95

  CELIKBILEK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.05.2000 - 41488/98

  VELIKOVA c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 27.09.1995 - 18984/91

  McCANN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.06.1992 - 12433/86

  LÜDI v. SWITZERLAND
• EGMR, 28.03.2000 - 22535/93

  MAHMUT KAYA v. TURKEY

• EGMR, 15.06.2021 - 62903/15

  KURT v. AUSTRIA

  Ce qui est important et suffisant pour engager la responsabilité de l'État au titre de l'article 2, c'est plutôt le fait que des mesures raisonnables que les autorités internes se sont abstenues de prendre auraient eu une chance réelle de changer le cours des événements ou d'atténuer le préjudice causé (Bljakaj et autres c. Croatie, no 74448/12, § 124, 18 septembre 2014, avec les références qui y sont citées).
• EGMR, 02.03.2017 - 41237/14

  Italien muss Opfer von häuslicher Gewalt entschädigen

  Elle rappelle toutefois que l'absence de mise en Å“uvre de mesures raisonnables qui auraient eu une chance réelle de changer le cours des événements ou d'atténuer le préjudice causé suffit à engager la responsabilité de l'Etat (E. et autres c. Royaume-Uni, no 33218/96, § 99 26 novembre 2002 ; Opuz, précité § 136; Bljakaj et autres c. Croatie, no 74448/12, § 124, 18 septembre 2014).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 9077/18

  Y AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

  Mrs V.'s third written complaint, made about an hour after that emergency call, was not acted upon on the evening it was received or the following day, when she was killed by Mr V. (see paragraphs 30 and 32 above, and compare Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, §§ 125-27, 18 September 2014).

 
• EGMR, 17.10.2023 - 29906/14

  DIMAKSYAN v. ARMENIA

  While the Court cannot speculate as to whether matters would have turned out differently if those in charge had acted otherwise and ensured that the relevant regulatory framework was effectively implemented in practice, the relevant test under Article 2 cannot require it to be shown that "but for" the failing or omission of the authorities the death would not have occurred (see, mutatis mutandis, Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 04.10.2016 - 69546/12

  CEVRIOGLU v. TURKEY

  In principle, this positive obligation will arise in the context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XII, and Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 108, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 3959/14

  KHUDOROSHKO v. RUSSIA

  Rather, what is important - and what is sufficient to engage the responsibility of the State under that article - is that the reasonable measures that the domestic authorities failed to take could have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 20620/10

  ERCAN BOZKURT v. TURKEY

  In the latter circumstances, the positive obligation covers a wide range of sectors (see Ciechonska v. Poland, no. 19776/04, §§ 62-63, 14 June 2011) and, in principle, will arise in the context of any activity, whether public or not, in which the right to life may be at stake (see Öneryildiz v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, § 71, ECHR 2004-XII; and Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 108, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 15028/09

  SELAHATTIN DEMIRTAS v. TURKEY

  It has thus, by applying the test set out in the Osman judgment, defined the scope of these obligations in instances concerning the requirement of personal protection of one or more individuals identifiable in advance as the potential targets of a lethal act as entailing the necessary analysis of whether there was any decisive stage in the sequence of events leading up to the deprivation of life when it could be said that the authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to the life of the individual, and whether they failed to take the necessary measures to avoid that risk (see, for example, Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 57, ECHR 2002-II (murder of a prisoner); Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/06, §§ 52-53, 15 January 2009; and Opuz, cited above, § 129, (killings in the context of domestic violence); Van Colle v. the United Kingdom, no. 7678/09, § 88, 13 November 2012 (killing of a witness); Kiliç v. Turkey, no. 22492/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-III; and Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22535/93, § 88, ECHR 2000-III (killing of an individual in a conflict zone); and Yabansu and Others v. Turkey, no. 43903/09, § 91, 12 November 2013 (killing of an individual by a third party during military service), cited in Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 107, 18 September 2014).
• EGMR, 22.03.2022 - 19355/09

  FILIPPOVY v. RUSSIA

  Rather, what is important - and what is sufficient to engage the responsibility of the State under that article - is that the reasonable measures that the domestic authorities failed to take could have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 18.01.2022 - 62080/09

  LYUBOV VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Rather, what is important, and what is sufficient to engage the responsibility of the State under that article, is that the reasonable measures that the domestic authorities failed to take could have had a real prospect of altering the outcome or mitigating the harm (see Bljakaj and Others v. Croatia, no. 74448/12, § 124, 18 September 2014, with further references).
• EGMR, 29.06.2017 - 77248/12

  DIMCHO DIMOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)
• EGMR - 57507/19 (anhängig)

  SVRTAN v. CROATIA