Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  STANIMIROVIC v. SERBIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 35 Abs. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect) Violation of Art. 6-1 Remainder inadmissible Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Stanimirovic v. Serbia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (39)Zitiert selbst (25)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.04.2010 - 42371/02

  PAVLENKO v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  It should ensure that it is possible to ascertain the facts of a case before that possibility fades away, making a fair examination of the question in issue next to impossible (see Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 69, 1 April 2010).

  It should ensure that it is possible to ascertain the facts of a case before that possibility fades away, making a fair examination of the question in issue next to impossible (see Pavlenko v. Russia, no. 42371/02, § 69, 1 April 2010).

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

  The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, the victim's relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their application with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, applicant relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their applications with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

  The Court has held in cases concerning the obligation to investigate under Article 2 of the Convention that where a death has occurred, the victim's relatives are expected to keep track of the progress of the investigation and to lodge their application with due expedition once they are, or should have become, aware of the lack of any effective investigation (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; and Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos.

• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 76573/01

  DENNIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  That being said, where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the act in issue, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).

  However, where it is clear from the outset that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the act at issue, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).

• EGMR, 29.04.2010 - 7864/06

  CAKIR v. CYPRUS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  The Court is of the opinion that this called into question the effectiveness of the original investigation and the obligation to investigate was revived (contrast Çakir and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010, in which the names of those allegedly responsible provided in 2005 were already known in 1974).

  We agree with the majority that the effectiveness of the original investigation can be questioned and that the State's obligation to investigate was subsequently revived (see Çakir and Others v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 7864/06, 29 April 2010, in which the names of those allegedly responsible provided in 2005 were already known in 1974).

• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-IV; and Heglas v. the Czech Republic, no. 5935/02, § 84, 1 March 2007).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  The Court reiterates that where a person makes a credible assertion, as in this case, that he has suffered treatment contrary to Article 3 at the hands of State agents, that provision, read in conjunction with the general duty under Article 1 of the Convention to "secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in... [the] Convention", requires by implication that there should be an effective official investigation (see, among many authorities, Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 03.06.2004 - 33097/96

  BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  The authorities must take into account the particularly vulnerable situation of victims and the fact that people who have been subjected to serious ill-treatment will often be less ready or willing to make a complaint (see Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 133, ECHR 2004-IV, and the authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  The fact that the police were able to secure the applicant's return to police custody and continue with his ill-treatment even after the applicant had been committed to a remand prison proves that his fears were reasonable (compare Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 65, ECHR 2007-VIII).
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 27561/02

  SOLMAZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.10.2011 - 26088/06

  From that date until 9 July 2003, when the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance decision, he was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, § 34, ECHR 2007-II).
• EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 57834/00

  KABLAN contre la TURQUIE
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 44698/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 12.04.2007 - 46286/99

  HACI ÖZEN v. TURKEY
• RG, 12.02.1910 - V 72/09

  Öffentlicher Glaube des Grundbuchs.
• EuGH, 06.11.1979 - 16/79

  Danis
• BFH, 21.04.1997 - V R 22/93

  Zulässigkeit von Gegenvorstellungen
• EGMR, 27.11.2007 - 32457/04

  BRECKNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• VK Rheinland-Pfalz, 14.05.2002 - 11/02
• EuGH - 24/84 (Verfahren ohne Entscheidung erledigt)

  Kommission / Luxemburg
• EGMR, 19.01.2010 - 22339/03

  TUNA c. TURQUIE
• LG Hof, 23.10.1989 - S 42/89
• DH Mannheim, 18.09.1990 - 16/90
• EGMR, 10.05.2005 - 34698/04

  HACKETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• FG Hamburg, 10.08.1993 - V 75/91
• RG, 08.03.1889 - V 21/90

  Vorläufige Vollstreckbarkeit.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 07.01.2014 - 3363/08

  LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. SERBIA

  Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011).

  The Court continued as follows: "Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011).

• EGMR, 20.04.2021 - 6097/16

  PETROVIC v. SERBIA

  Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see, for example, Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011, and Almaši, cited above, § 61).

  He was then detained for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 until his conviction by the Zrenjanin High Court on 30 June 2015 (see paragraph 43 above; see also, for example, Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 43, 18 October 2011).

• EGMR - 60774/14 (anhängig)

  GUNKO v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and 10 other applications

  60774/14, 67679/14 and 49618/17 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in the Russian Federation and in lodging their complaints with the Court without undue delay (see, mutatis mutandis, Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, §§ 30-31, 18 October 2011; Melnichuk and Others v. Romania, nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015; and Samadov v. Armenia (dec.), no. 36606/08, § 18, 26 January 2021)?.

  60774/14, 67679/14 and 49618/17 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in Ukraine and in lodging their complaints with the Court without undue delay (see, mutatis mutandis, Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, §§ 30-31, 18 October 2011; Melnichuk and Others v. Romania, nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015; and Samadov v. Armenia (dec.), no. 36606/08, § 18, 26 January 2021)?.

• EGMR, 19.02.2015 - 75450/12

  M.S. v. CROATIA

  See further; Filip, cited above, §§ 48-49 - where, in the context of a psychiatric internment, the applicant brought the allegations of ill-treatment before the domestic authorities by complaining to the first instance court and the President of the Republic; Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, § 123, 2 April 2009 - where the Court held that the applicant brought the matter of ill-treatment to the attention of the State authorities by producing evidence in the civil proceedings; MaÄ‘er v. Croatia, no. 56185/07, §§ 88-89, 21 June 2011 - where the applicant complied with his duty to inform the relevant national authorities of his alleged ill-treatment by complaining before the trial court and the Constitutional Court; Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 41, 18 October 2011 - where the obligation for an ex officio investigation arose after it was established during the trial against the applicant that he had been ill-treated; and J.L. v. Latvia, no. 23893/06, §§ 11-13 and 73, 17 April 2012 - where the applicant sufficiently informed the domestic authorities by complaining of ill-treatment in the remedies against his conviction in the criminal proceedings.
• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  The nature and extent of any subsequent investigation required by the procedural obligation will inevitably depend on the circumstances of each particular case and may well differ from that to be expected immediately after the death has occurred (see Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 29, 18 October 2011, and Harrison and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 44301/13, 44379/13 and 44384/13, § 51, 25 March 2014).
• EGMR - 70704/14 (anhängig)

  BOYEV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and 1 other application

  In this connection, has the applicant in application no. 70704/14 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in the Russian Federation and in lodging his complaints with the Court without undue delay (see, mutatis mutandis, Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, §§ 30-31, 18 October 2011; Melnichuk and Others v. Romania, nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015; and Samadov v. Armenia (dec.), no. 36606/08, § 18, 26 January 2021)?.

  In this connection, has the applicant in application no. 70704/14 shown the required degree of diligence in pursuing domestic remedies in Ukraine and in lodging his complaints with the Court without undue delay (see, mutatis mutandis, Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, §§ 30-31, 18 October 2011; Melnichuk and Others v. Romania, nos. 35279/10 and 34782/10, §§ 80-83, 5 May 2015; and Samadov v. Armenia (dec.), no. 36606/08, § 18, 26 January 2021)?.

• EGMR, 19.06.2012 - 36937/06

  [ENG]

  Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011).
• EGMR, 26.01.2021 - 73313/17

  ZLICIC v. SERBIA

  Even when, strictly speaking, no complaint has been made, an investigation must be started if there are sufficiently clear indications that ill-treatment has been used (see, for example, Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 39, 18 October 2011, and Almaši, cited above, § 61).
• EGMR, 18.09.2012 - 12214/07

  [ENG]

  In this respect the Court reiterates that in the case of an investigation for the purposes of Articles 2 and 3, a procedural obligation may be revived subsequent to a new development, as the discovery of new evidence or information casting doubt on the results of an earlier investigation or trial (see, mutatis mutandis, Brecknell v. the United Kingdom no. 32457/04, §§ 73-75, 27 November 2007 - as regards an Article 2 complaint, and Stanimirovic v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, §§ 29 and 33, 18 October 2011 - as regards an Article 3 complaint).
• EGMR, 24.11.2015 - 1451/10

  SINISTAJ v. MONTENEGRO ant 2 other applications

  This involves an examination of the unlawfulness in question and, where the violation of another Convention right is concerned, the nature of the violation found (see Stanimirović v. Serbia, no. 26088/06, § 50, 18 October 2011, and other authorities cited therein).
• EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 21571/05

  MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 11.03.2021 - 24655/18

  BARANIN v. MONTENEGRO and 1 other application
• EGMR, 03.06.2014 - 19072/08

  HABIMI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.11.2018 - 19421/15

  v.D. v. CROATIA (NO. 2)
• EGMR, 03.12.2019 - 29896/14

  JEVTOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 23.01.2014 - 24125/06

  W v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 32198/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 24.01.2012 - 49669/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 27.03.2012 - 30141/09

  GUTIERREZ DORADO AND DORADO ORTIZ v. SPAIN
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 21388/15

  ALMASI v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 19.12.2017 - 19796/14

  KRSMANOVIC v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 3400/07

  M.A. v. SLOVENIA
• EGMR, 30.04.2013 - 37204/02

  GUSAR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND ROMANIA
• EGMR, 09.10.2012 - 53073/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.04.2013 - 17253/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 43411/17

  LAKATO? AND OTHERS v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 4800/10

  SHAVLOKHOVA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 25.02.2014 - 25147/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 06.05.2025 - 13696/23

  RADUK v. SERBIA
• EGMR, 10.03.2015 - 32220/07

  APRASIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 06.05.2014 - 27631/12

  VARTIC (V) v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 18.12.2012 - 39804/04

  BAISUEV AND ANZOROV v. GEORGIA
• EGMR - 34782/10 (anhängig)

  DEMCHUK AND SHPARTAK v. ROMANIA
• EGMR - 7375/25 (anhängig)

  IBRAHIM v. DENMARK
• EGMR - 16989/26 (anhängig)

  KUUR v. DENMARK
• EGMR - 60318/15 (anhängig)

  STEPANYAN AND GRYNYK v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE and 5 other applications
• EGMR - 7123/23 (anhängig)

  M.Z. AND D.Z. v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 36470/06

  PETROVIC AND GAJIC v. SERBIA