Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (32)

• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 34698/04

  HACKETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  As to the steps taken after 24 September 2015, the Court reiterates that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34698/04, 10 May 2005; Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; and Harrison and Others, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 32457/04

  BRECKNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  As to the steps taken after 24 September 2015, the Court reiterates that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34698/04, 10 May 2005; Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; and Harrison and Others, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 17.02.2009 - 32567/06

  WILLIAMS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  As to the steps taken after 24 September 2015, the Court reiterates that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34698/04, 10 May 2005; Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; and Harrison and Others, cited above, § 51).

 
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03

  GASYAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  As to the steps taken after 24 September 2015, the Court reiterates that where information purportedly casting new light on the circumstances of a death comes into the public domain, a new obligation to investigate the death may arise (see Hackett v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 34698/04, 10 May 2005; Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, §§ 66-67, 27 November 2007; Williams v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32567/06, 17 February 2009; Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 60, 13 October 2009; and Harrison and Others, cited above, § 51).
• EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 57812/13

  Z AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  If the applicants become dissatisfied with the progress being made or, upon the conclusion of the investigation, are not content with the outcome, it remains open to them to lodge a further application with the Court (see, by way of comparison, Harrison and Others, cited above, § 59, and Z and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57812/13, § 46, 21 April 2015).
• LG Bonn, 25.09.2008 - 27 Qs 5/08

  Rechtmäßigkeit einer Durchsuchung von Geschäftsräumen aufgrund des Verdachts …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  34.
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  In other cases it ranged from three and a half years to one year and eight months (in Gojevic-Zrnic and Mancic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, § 31, 17 March 2015) and Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, 29 January 2002) it was three and a half years; in Finozhenok v. Russia ((dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011) it was three years; in Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 54415/09, § 49, 6 March 2012) it was two and a half years; in Elsanova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005) it was two years; and in Gusar v. the Republic of Moldova and Romania ((dec.), no. 37204/02, § 17, 30 April 2013) it was one year and eight months.
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  In applying the six-month time-limit for lodging an application in such cases, the following periods between the last relevant procedural step on the part of the national authorities and lodging the applications with the Court have been considered too lengthy: in the cases of Radicanin v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 75504/12, § 29, 19 May 2015) and Grubic v. Croatia it was over nine years ((dec.), no. 56094/12, § 24, 9 June 2015); in Aydin and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005) it was about seven years; and in Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002) it was about six years.
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  In applying the six-month time-limit for lodging an application in such cases, the following periods between the last relevant procedural step on the part of the national authorities and lodging the applications with the Court have been considered too lengthy: in the cases of Radicanin v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 75504/12, § 29, 19 May 2015) and Grubic v. Croatia it was over nine years ((dec.), no. 56094/12, § 24, 9 June 2015); in Aydin and Others v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005) it was about seven years; and in Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002) it was about six years.
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  In other cases it ranged from three and a half years to one year and eight months (in Gojevic-Zrnic and Mancic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, § 31, 17 March 2015) and Bayram and Yildirim v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, 29 January 2002) it was three and a half years; in Finozhenok v. Russia ((dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011) it was three years; in Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 54415/09, § 49, 6 March 2012) it was two and a half years; in Elsanova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005) it was two years; and in Gusar v. the Republic of Moldova and Romania ((dec.), no. 37204/02, § 17, 30 April 2013) it was one year and eight months.
• EGMR, 01.02.2011 - 7050/05

  AÇIS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

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

  FINOZHENOK v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2013 - 41844/09

  AMINE GÜZEL v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 33898/11

  FINDIK v. TURKEY AND OMER V. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.03.2014 - 44301/13

  HARRISON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 26.08.2014 - 31179/11

  UTSMIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 66953/09

  MILEUSNIC ET MILEUSNIC-ESPENHEIM c. CROATIE
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 5676/13

  GOJEVIC-ZRNIC AND MANCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 75504/12

  RADICANIN AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 79768/12

  KUKAVICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13

  TRESKAVICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 38882/13

  OPACIC AND GODIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 70273/11

  BOROJEVIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 50175/12

  M. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39468/13

  OBAJDIN v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 12986/13

  TRIVKANOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  ZDJELAR AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 38766/15

  MILIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

• EGMR, 26.03.2020 - 55431/09

  BARLETTA ET FARNETANO c. ITALIE

  Dans l'éventualité où les requérants ne soient pas satisfaits de l'issue de la procédure susmentionnée, ils pourront former un nouveau recours devant la Cour (voir, parmi d'autres, Todorovic c. Croatia, (déc.), no 52577/15, 19 juin 2018).