Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  REMETIN v. CROATIA (No. 2)

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Remetin v. Croatia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  REMETIN v. CROATIA

  Art. 1, Art. 3, Art. 8 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (9)

• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 38719/97

  D.P. & J.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 45, 5 March 2009).
• EGMR, 21.01.2003 - 36505/02

  AUGUST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  And such protection, in the context of attacks on the physical integrity of a person, should be ensured through the efficient criminal-law mechanisms (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 27; August v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 36505/02, 21 January 2003; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 36).
• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 45, 5 March 2009).

 
• EGMR, 15.05.2007 - 30164/06

  BAGHERI AND MALIKI v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on misrepresentation or falsehood (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X, and Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), 30164/06, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 05.03.2009 - 38478/05

  SANDRA JANKOVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 45, 5 March 2009).
• EGMR, 19.07.2011 - 52442/09

  DURDEVIC v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  The Court notes that in a number of cases against Croatia concerning the State's procedural obligation to investigate acts of violence, it has already rejected the same objections raised by the Government in the case at hand (see Sandra Jankovic, cited above, §§ 35-36; Beganovic, cited above § 56; Ä�urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 67, ECHR 2011 (extracts); D.J. v. Croatia, no. 42418/10, §§ 63-65, 24 July 2012; and Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, §§ 73-77, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 11.12.2012 - 29525/10

  REMETIN v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  The Court notes that in a number of cases against Croatia concerning the State's procedural obligation to investigate acts of violence, it has already rejected the same objections raised by the Government in the case at hand (see Sandra Jankovic, cited above, §§ 35-36; Beganovic, cited above § 56; Ä�urÄ?evic v. Croatia, no. 52442/09, § 67, ECHR 2011 (extracts); D.J. v. Croatia, no. 42418/10, §§ 63-65, 24 July 2012; and Remetin v. Croatia, no. 29525/10, §§ 73-77, 11 December 2012).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96

  VARBANOV v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  The Court reiterates that an application may be rejected as abusive under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, among other reasons, if it was knowingly based on misrepresentation or falsehood (see Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, § 36, ECHR 2000-X, and Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), 30164/06, 15 May 2007).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2014 - 7446/12

  To that end they are to maintain and apply in practice an adequate legal framework affording protection against acts of violence by private individuals (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; D.P. and J.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 38719/97, § 118, 10 October 2002; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, §§ 150 and 152, ECHR 2003-XII, and Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, § 45, 5 March 2009).

• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 25426/20

  I.M. ET AUTRES c. ITALIE

  Eu égard à sa jurisprudence (Remetin c. Croatie (no 2), no 7446/12, § 67, 24 juillet 2014) et à la nature des griefs exposés par les requérants, la Cour estime que les questions soulevées en l'espèce doivent être examinées sous le seul angle de l'article 8 de la Convention.
• EGMR, 30.08.2022 - 47358/20

  C. v. ROMANIA

  In the context of attacks on the physical integrity of a person, such protection should be ensured through efficient criminal-law mechanisms (see Remetin v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 7446/12, § 70 in fine, 24 July 2014, 24 July 2014, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 19256/13

  VULETIC v. CROATIA

  Where, therefore, an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, the Court considers that it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date on which the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27229/95, 22 May 1998; Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001; Remetin v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 7446/12, § 77, 24 July 2014; and Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos.
• EGMR, 12.09.2017 - 33438/16

  MOLNAR v. CROATIA

  Where, therefore, an applicant avails her or himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, the Court considers that it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date on which the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, §§ 259-260, ECHR 2014 (extracts); see also, Keenan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 27229/95, 22 May 1998; Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001; and Remetin v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 7446/12, § 77, 24 July 2014).