Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  Z AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Z AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

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

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 13.11.2012 - 4455/10

  MARGUS v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 57812/13

  On 4 September 2014 the State Attorney's Office held a meeting in connection with the Court's judgment in the Margus case (see Margus v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), in which the Court held that the ne bis in idem principle did not apply to amnesties for war crimes.

  Further to this, however, and following the Court's judgment in the Margus case where the Court held that the ne bis in idem principle did not apply where an amnesty had been granted for acts which amounted to grave breaches of fundamental human rights (see Margus v. Croatia [GC], no. 4455/10, ECHR 2014 (extracts)), the State Attorney's Office re-opened the investigation into A's killing (see paragraphs 25 and 26 above).

• EGMR, 16.07.2013 - 43098/09

  McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.04.2015 - 57812/13

  During the period between November 1992, when the decision was issued applying the amnesty in respect of the alleged perpetrators, and August 2003, when the first applicant lodged a fresh criminal complaint, there was no "ongoing investigation" and accordingly there was no issue of proceedings having dragged on for a number of years without ever reaching any conclusion (compare and contrast McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, §§ 111 and 114, ECHR 2001-III; and McCaughey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 43098/09, ECHR 2013).

• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  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).