Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  NARIN v. TURKEY

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Non-pecuniary damage - award Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (67)Zitiert selbst (14)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  Particular regard must be had to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II) and what is at stake for the applicant (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 25444/94

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  Particular regard must be had to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II) and what is at stake for the applicant (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 124, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  However, special considerations may apply in exceptional cases where an applicant avails himself or relies on an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, it is appropriate to take as the start of the six-month period the date when he first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).

• EGMR, 20.12.2007 - 7888/03

  NIKOLOVA AND VELICHKOVA v. BULGARIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this context, the Court reiterates that breaches of the right to life cannot be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the relatives of the victim (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 56-57, 20 December 2007; Leonidis v. Greece, no. 43326/05, §§ 46-48, 8 January 2009; Amaç and Okkan v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 10.01.2002 - 62566/00

  HAZAR, TEKTAS, BEKIROGLU, PEKOL, BOZKUS, TEKTAS, ATMAN, ISIK, AKSUCU, DOSTER, …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  The Government also reiterated the Court's case-law that if no remedies are available or if they are judged to be ineffective, the six-month time-limit runs from the date of the act complained of (see Hazar and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 62566/00, 10 January 2002).
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this connection, the Government claimed that, even if the applicants are correct in this allegation, which they contest, they should have been aware of this situation much earlier and should not have waited for ten years to lodge their application with the Court (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this connection, the Government claimed that, even if the applicants are correct in this allegation, which they contest, they should have been aware of this situation much earlier and should not have waited for ten years to lodge their application with the Court (see Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III, and Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002).
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this connection, in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives the Court has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kınis v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; and Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this connection, in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives the Court has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kınis v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; and Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005).
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 43326/05

  LEONIDIS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  In this context, the Court reiterates that breaches of the right to life cannot be remedied exclusively through an award of compensation to the relatives of the victim (see Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, no. 7888/03, §§ 56-57, 20 December 2007; Leonidis v. Greece, no. 43326/05, §§ 46-48, 8 January 2009; Amaç and Okkan v. Turkey, nos.
• EGMR, 28.06.2005 - 13635/04

  KINIS c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.11.2007 - 54179/00

  AMAÇ ET OKKAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 02.10.2007 - 25070/02

  BEDIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 25580/03

  [ENG]

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 56080/13

  LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL

  Accordingly, the Court dismissed those cases as having been lodged out of time (see, among others, Jørgensen and Others v. Denmark (dec.), no. 30173/12, § 63, 28 June 2016; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 49, 15 December 2009; and Bedir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 25070/02, 2 October 2007).
• EGMR, 17.09.2014 - 10865/09

  MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

  La Cour a rejeté pour tardiveté des requêtes dont les auteurs avaient trop attendu, ou attendu sans raison, pour la saisir après s'être rendu compte, ou avoir dû se rendre compte, de l'absence d'ouverture d'une enquête ou de l'enlisement ou de la perte d'effectivité de l'enquête menée, ainsi que de l'absence dans l'immédiat, quel que soit le cas de figure, de la moindre chance réaliste de voir une enquête effective être menée à l'avenir (voir, entre autres, Narin c. Turquie, Narin c. Turquie, no 18907/02, § 51, 15 décembre 2009, Aydinlar et autres c. Turquie (déc.), no 3575/05, 9 mars 2010, et la décision rendue dans l'affaire Frandes c. Roumanie (déc.), no 35802/05, §§ 18-23, 17 mai 2011).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  [ENG]

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).

• EGMR, 06.11.2018 - 3289/10

  BURLYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

  As to the second aspect (see paragraph 106 in fine above), the Court notes that throughout the investigation the applicants maintained regular contact with the authorities, displaying active interest in the proceedings (compare M.C. and A.C. v. Romania, cited above, § 78; also contrast Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 46, 15 December 2009, and Frandeş v. Romania (dec.), no. 35802/05, § 21, 17 May 2011).
• EGMR, 06.09.2016 - 72152/13

  CINDRIC AND BESLIC v. CROATIA

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009; Grubić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, §§ 30-41, 9 June 2015; Žarković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75187/12, §§ 24-35, 9 June 2015; Damjanović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5306/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015; and Vuković and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 3430/13, §§ 23-34, 25 August 2015).
• EGMR, 30.01.2014 - 61536/08

  [ENG]

  In cases concerning disappearances, unlike in cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives (see, for example, Elsanova v. Russia (dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005, and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009), the Court has held that taking into account the uncertainty and confusion typical of such situations, the nature of the ensuing investigations implies that the relatives of a disappeared person may be justified in waiting lengthy periods of time for the national authorities to conclude their proceedings, even if those proceedings are sporadic and plagued by problems.
• EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 34661/07

  MUCIBABIC v. SERBIA

  Although there were adjournments and lulls in the judicial activity in this case, there were no periods of total inactivity allowing the Court to establish the date on which the applicant was or could have been aware that the remedies had become ineffective, given that he had consistently displayed the requisite interest in obtaining a concrete result and had continued his efforts by pursuing a subsidiary prosecution (see, by contrast, Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, § 58, 13 October 2009, and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 11554/07

  [ENG]

  In a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives the Court has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 24.10.2013 - 7821/07

  [ENG]

  The Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants" relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 15.03.2011 - 39358/05

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of applicants' relatives it has examined the period of time from which the applicant can or should start doubting the effectiveness of a remedy and its bearing on the six-month time-limit provided for in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 10.10.2017 - 21194/09

  KHADZHIMURADOV v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 16.01.2014 - 38828/10

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 19796/14

  KRSMANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 34364/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 10.12.2019 - 71667/17

  KU? IC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 1721/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 11.06.2020 - 32349/16

  VUJNOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13

  TRESKAVICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 28.02.2012 - 31682/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 17.05.2011 - 35802/05

  [FRE]
• EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 25.01.2018 - 38766/15

  MILIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.01.2014 - 53036/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.08.2013 - 51432/09

  SAIDOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 39768/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.06.2020 - 19809/11

  ABAZOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 02.04.2015 - 21135/09

  IREZIYEVY v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 27.11.2014 - 2721/11

  KHARAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 50203/12

  ORIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.03.2010 - 3575/05

  EMRAH AYDINLAR ET AUTRES c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 17.11.2020 - 58026/12

  AKIN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 27.06.2019 - 40009/12

  GOGUADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 29.05.2018 - 48176/11

  TORLAK v. TURKEY and 4 other applications
• EGMR, 12.11.2015 - 3769/11

  BIMURADOVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2015 - 29823/13

  NJEZIC AND STIMAC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 5676/13

  GOJEVIC-ZRNIC AND MANCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 29.01.2015 - 5096/12

  NIKOLIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

  BOGDANOVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 22026/10

  AKHVLEDIANI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 25.11.2010 - 17321/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 41521/14

  GADUYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2020 - 5725/11

  DASHUYEVA v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 57273/16

  CHAABAN ET ABOURABAI c. BELGIQUE
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 16233/08

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 09.06.2015 - 56094/12

  GRUBIC v. CROATIA and 7 other applications
• EGMR, 30.04.2015 - 5713/11

  ISLAMOVA c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 26.03.2015 - 11237/10

  Russland muss Tschetschenen Schmerzensgeld zahlen
• EGMR - 32659/25 (anhängig)

  YILMAZ v. TÜRKİYE
• EGMR, 21.11.2023 - 53933/11

  KÜRKUT v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 18.05.2021 - 48806/10

  ATAYANTS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 51714/13

  ÐUROVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32023/13

  SAVIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 57849/13

  LOVRIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 21610/13

  RIBIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 74338/12

  BABIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12

  VARTIC (V) v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 02.09.2010 - 32382/05

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 20.07.2010 - 24869/05

  BUHUR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 29.08.2017 - 27240/09

  GISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
• EGMR, 15.03.2016 - 62916/13

  IVANCIC AND DZELAJLIJA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 15.06.2010 - 8537/05

  CEMIL AYDIN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 12.02.2019 - 67748/13

  MELIKIDIS v. CYPRUS
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 56069/14

  W.N. c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 4867/03

  ADRIAN COSTIN GEORGESCU v. ROMANIA