Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GHEORGHE COBZARU v. ROMANIA

  No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  COBZARU v. ROMANIA

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

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (9)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 6978/08

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  The application concerns the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into the killing of the applicant's son, as continued after the adoption of the Court's judgment of 25 June 2013 in the case of Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania (no. 6978/08), in which a breach of Article 2 of the Convention had been found, and concluded by a judgment of the Bucharest County of 25 June 2013 holding that in the particular circumstances of the case the killing had been justified.

  The proceedings in the case of Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania, application no. 6978/08.

  In examining the admissibility of the present application, the Court must ascertain whether it has jurisdiction to consider the applicant's complaint without encroaching on the prerogatives of the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention in the execution of the Court's judgment in the case of Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania (no. 6978/08, 25 June 2013).

• EGMR, 30.03.2016 - 5878/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  They are criteria which, taken jointly, enable the degree of effectiveness of the investigation to be assessed (see, mutatis mutandis, Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 229-239, 30 March 2016, and Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 70, 17 July 2018).
• EGMR, 17.07.2018 - 15086/07

  Mord an Journalistin: Russland wegen Politkowskaja-Ermittlungen verurteilt

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  They are criteria which, taken jointly, enable the degree of effectiveness of the investigation to be assessed (see, mutatis mutandis, Armani Da Silva v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 5878/08, § 229-239, 30 March 2016, and Mazepa and Others v. Russia, no. 15086/07, § 70, 17 July 2018).

• EGMR, 27.05.2003 - 37235/97

  SOFRI et AUTRES contre l'ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  However, the Court considers that these difficulties were of an objective nature which can be attributed to the loss of evidence due to unpredictable events such as the flooding of the room where the corpus delicti was stored and the deterioration of the evidence as a result of specific laboratory examinations that had been conducted previously (see paragraph 12 above; see also, mutatis mutandis and in the context of Article 6 of the Convention, Sofri and Others v. Italy (dec.), no. 37235/97, ECHR 2003-VIII (extracts), concerning, in the ambit of a criminal investigation for murder, the loss or destruction of pieces of evidence such as the victim's clothes, the car used by the killers and the bullets that had been removed from the body or found at the scene of the murder).
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 19867/12

  FONTES MOREIRA FERREIRA c. PORTUGAL

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  With regard to the relevant principles concerning its jurisdiction in this context, the Court refers to the principles recently set out in the case of Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) ([GC], no. 19867/12, §§ 47-48, 11 July 2017).
• EGMR, 26.07.2011 - 29157/09

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  However, as explained above, that does not prevent the Court from considering a new application in so far as it includes new aspects which were not determined in the initial judgment (see, respectively in the context of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, § 53, 15 November 2018, and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 64-68, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  Applying the above principles to the case before it, the Court must therefore ascertain whether the present follow-up application concerns only the execution of the initial application without raising any relevant new facts or whether it contains relevant new information possibly entailing a fresh violation of the Convention, for the examination of which the Court is competent ratione materiae (see Egmez v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 12214/07, § 57, 18 September 2012).
• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  v.D. v. CROATIA (NO. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  However, as explained above, that does not prevent the Court from considering a new application in so far as it includes new aspects which were not determined in the initial judgment (see, respectively in the context of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, § 53, 15 November 2018, and Liu v. Russia (no. 2), no. 29157/09, §§ 64-68, 26 July 2011).
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 57365/12

  ANTON c. ROUMANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.05.2020 - 21171/16

  He claimed that the investigation had not been impartial since the individuals who had carried out the investigative measures had been, directly or indirectly, colleagues in the same Ministry of Interior of the officers under investigation within the police (the applicant pointed to the case of Anton v. Romania, no. 57365/12, § 56, 19 May 2015).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 11.01.2024 - 62807/09

  MASLOVA v. RUSSIA

  (compare with V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, §§ 51-52, 15 November 2018; Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania [Committee], no. 21171/16, §§ 28-29, 7 May 2020).
• EGMR, 19.12.2024 - 2705/20

  BELEY v. UKRAINE

  That approach has been applied by the Court in a number of cases under Article 3 so far (see, for example, V.D. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 19421/15, § 54, 15 November 2018; Gheorghe Cobzaru v. Romania, no. 21171/16 [Committee], § 31, 7 May 2020; and Bikbulatova and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 47107/14, 7 April 2022, all finding no violation).