Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  RAZNATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  RAZNATOVIC v. MONTENEGRO

  Art. 1, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.07.2004 - 53924/00

  Schutz des ungeborenen Lebens durch EMRK - Schwangerschaftsabbruch nach …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 14742/18

  By contrast, in medical negligence cases the Court has considered that the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2, which concerns the requirement to set up an effective judicial system, will be satisfied if the legal system affords victims a remedy in the civil courts, either alone or in conjunction with a remedy in the criminal courts, enabling any responsibility of the doctors concerned to be established and any appropriate civil redress to be obtained (see Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § 90, ECHR 2004-VIII).
• EGMR, 22.09.1993 - 15473/89

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 14742/18

  As a general rule, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them (see, among many other authorities, Klaas v. Germany, 22 September 1993, § 29, Series A no. 269).
• EGMR, 04.05.2001 - 28883/95

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 14742/18

  In this connection, the Court must be cautious in taking on the role of a first-instance tribunal of fact, where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case (see, for example, McKerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 28883/95, 4 April 2000).
• OVG Schleswig-Holstein, 17.10.2011 - 2 MB 39/11

  Kreis muss Eigenbeteiligung für Schülerbeförderung einführen

  Auszug aus EGMR, 02.09.2021 - 14742/18

  32/05, 73/10, 40/11 and 27/13.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.12.2024 - 57507/19

  SVRTAN v. CROATIA

  As a general rule, where domestic proceedings have taken place, it is not the Court's task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them (see, among many other authorities, Ražnatović v. Montenegro, no. 14742/18, § 39, 2 September 2021).
• EGMR, 05.11.2024 - 25578/11

  CASARINI v. ITALY

  The issue of determining whether a domestic procedure constitutes an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1, which an applicant must exhaust, depends on a number of factors, notably the applicant's complaint, the scope of the obligations of the State under that particular Convention provision, the available remedies in the respondent State and the specific circumstances of the case (see, among others, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 134, 19 December 2017, and Ražnatović v. Montenegro, no. 14742/18, § 27 2 September 2021).
• EGMR, 02.07.2024 - 26781/20

  PALMERI v. ITALY

  Rn. 39 In this connection, the Court reiterates that the determination of whether a domestic procedure constitutes an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1, which an applicant must use and which should therefore be taken into account for the purposes of the six-month time-limit, depends on a number of factors, notably the applicant's complaint, the scope of the obligations of the State under that particular Convention provision, the available remedies in the respondent State and the specific circumstances of the case (see Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, cited above, § 134; Ražnatović v. Montenegro, no. 14742/18, § 27, 2 September 2021; and Mukhametov and Others v. Russia, nos. 53404/18 and 3 others, § 27, 14 December 2021).

• EGMR, 30.11.2021 - 69736/12

  MKRTCHYAN v. ARMENIA

  There is therefore no call for the Court to assess the second part of the Osman test (see paragraph 50 above), namely whether the school authorities had taken the measures which could reasonably have been expected of them (see Ražnatović v. Montenegro, no. 14742/18, §§ 43-44, 2 September 2021).
• EGMR, 05.09.2023 - 73865/16

  M.Ð. AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Though the Court is not bound by the findings of domestic courts and remains free to make its own assessment in the light of all the material before it, in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the findings of fact reached by the domestic courts (see Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 180, ECHR 2011 (extracts), and Ražnatović v. Montenegro, no. 14742/18, § 39, 2 September 2021).
• EGMR, 20.01.2026 - 55672/22

  ÇELA v. ALBANIA

  The issue of determining whether a domestic procedure constitutes an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention which an applicant must exhaust depends on a number of factors, notably the applicant's complaint, the scope of the obligations of the State under that particular Convention provision, the available remedies in the respondent State and the specific circumstances of the case (see, among other authorities, Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, § 134, 19 December 2017, and Ražnatović v. Montenegro, no. 14742/18, § 27, 2 September 2021).