Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  Where time is of essence for resolving an issue in a case, there is a burden on the applicant to ensure that his or her claims are raised before both the relevant domestic authorities and the Court with the necessary expedition to ensure that they may be properly and fairly resolved (see amongst others, Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005).
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 48787/99

  Transnistrien

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as set out in Ilascu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII), may be summarised as follows.
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  Where time is of essence for resolving an issue in a case, there is a burden on the applicant to ensure that his or her claims are raised before both the relevant domestic authorities and the Court with the necessary expedition to ensure that they may be properly and fairly resolved (see amongst others, Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005).

 
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 1721/07

  NASIRKHAYEVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  FINOZHENOK v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 56185/07

  MADER v. CROATIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  STANIMIROVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 158, ECHR 2009-...; see also, Baran and Hun, cited above, § 46; Ekrem Baytap v. Turkey (dec.), no. 17579/05, 29 April 2010; MaÄ?er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, § 84, 21 June 2011; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011; Nasirkhaeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  MANUKYAN v. GEORGIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  The determination of whether the applicant in a given case has complied with the admissibility criteria will depend on the circumstances of the case and other factors such as the diligence and interest displayed by the applicant as well as the adequacy of the investigation in question (Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), 53073/07, 9 October 2012).

• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

  MOCANU ET AUTRES c. ROUMANIE

  It follows that the obligation of diligence incumbent on applicants contains two distinct but closely linked aspects: on the one hand, the applicants must contact the domestic authorities promptly concerning progress in the investigation - which implies the need to apply to them with diligence, since any delay risks compromising the effectiveness of the investigation - and, on the other, they must lodge their application promptly with the Court as soon as they become aware or should have become aware that the investigation is not effective (see Nasirkhayeva v. Russia (dec.), no. 1721/07, 31 May 2011; Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 April 2013; and Gusar v. Moldova (dec.), no. 37204/02, §§ 14-17, 30 April 2013).
• EGMR, 23.06.2020 - 2429/13

  SARI c. TURQUIE

  Ceci étant dit, la Cour souligne que les situations continues - comme c'était le cas à la date de l'introduction de la présente requête - ne sont pas toutes identiques ; comme le Gouvernement le rappelle (paragraphe 29 ci-dessus), s'agissant d'une enquête pour décès suspect d'un proche, les requérants sont, d'une part, censés prendre des mesures pour se tenir au courant de l'état d'avancement de l'enquête, ou de sa stagnation, et, d'autre part, introduire leurs requêtes avec la célérité voulue dès lors qu'ils savent, ou devraient savoir, qu'aucune enquête pénale effective n'est menée (Bulut et Yavuz c. Turquie (déc.), no 73065/01, 28 mai 2002, Bayram et Yildirim c. Turquie (déc.), no 38587/97, CEDH 2002-III, Nasirkhayeva c. Russie (déc.), no 1721/07, 31 mai 2011, Akhvlediani et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), nos 22026/10 et 9 autres, §§ 23-29, 9 avril 2013, et Gusar c. République de Moldova et Roumanie (déc.), no 37204/02, §§ 14-17, 30 avril 2013, et Mocanu et autres, précité, § 261 à 263 - pour une analyse générale de ce point spécifique, voir aussi, Varnava et autres c. Turquie [GC], nos 16064/90 et 8 autres, §§ 156 à 159, CEDH 2009).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  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, 10.11.2015 - 3534/06

  INCIN c. TURQUIE

  Il s'ensuit que l'obligation de diligence incombant aux requérants comporte deux aspects distincts quoique étroitement liés: d'une part, les intéressés doivent s'enquérir promptement auprès des autorités internes de l'avancement de l'enquête - ce qui implique la nécessité de les saisir avec diligence car tout retard risque de compromettre l'effectivité de l'enquête, et, d'autre part, ils doivent promptement saisir la Cour dès qu'ils se rendent compte ou auraient dû se rendre compte que l'enquête n'est pas effective (Nasirkhayeva c. Russie (déc.), no 1721/07, 31 mai 2011, Akhvlediani et autres c. Géorgie (déc.), no 22026/10, §§ 23-29, 9 avril 2013, Gusar c. Moldova (déc.), no 37204/02, §§ 14-17, 30 avril 2013, et Mocanu et autres, précité, §§ 264-266).