Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  ORIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 14, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  ORIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 6, Art. 8 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (4)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 14.03.2002 - 46477/99

  PAUL ET AUDREY EDWARDS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 50203/12

  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; in such a case it is appropriate to take as the start of the six-month period the date when he or she first became aware or ought to have become aware of those circumstances rendering the remedy ineffective (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001).

  The essential purpose of such an investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and, in cases involving State agents or bodies, to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility (see Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, § 69, ECHR 2002-II).

• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 50203/12

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (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, 13.05.2014 - 50203/12

  Furthermore, it ought also to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under any uncertainty for a prolonged period of time (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, 25.01.2018 - 38766/15

  MILIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  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 have started doubting the effectiveness of a remedy (see Sükran Aydin and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yildirim, cited above; Kinis v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Frandes v. Romania (dec.), no. 35802/05, 17 May 2011; Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011; Attalah v. France (dec.), no. 51987/07, 30 August 2011; Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 54415/09, 6 March 2012; Gusar v. Moldova and Romania (dec.), no. 37204/02, 30 April 2013; Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia, no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; Gojevic-Zrnic and Mancic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, 17 March 2015; Radicanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75504/12; and Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015).

  As the Court has held on numerous occasions, since such proceedings are not relevant for the State's procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, they cannot affect the running of the six-month period in the present case (compare Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 48, 15 December 2009; Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, § 38, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, § 33, 13 May 2014; Ivancic and Dzelalija v. Croatia (dec.), no. 62916/13, § 33, 15 March 2016; and Treskavica v. Croatia, no. 32036/13, § 45, 12 January 2016).

• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA

  As regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the Court notes that the same issue was resolved in the Bogdanovic case where the same complaint was found to be manifestly ill-founded (see Bogdanovic. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, 18 March 2014; and Oric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014).
• EGMR, 28.04.2022 - 78836/16

  BURSAC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In previous cases where the applicants complained that the domestic courts had dismissed their claims for compensation for wartime damage as time-barred, the Court has found no breach of their right of access to a court (see Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia (dec.), no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; B. and Others v. Croatia, no. 71593/11, § 84, 18 June 2015; and Zdjelar and Others v. Croatia, no. 80960/12, § 103, 6 July 2017).
• EGMR, 22.11.2016 - 73223/14

  IVANEZA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  In a number of cases against Croatia concerning ongoing investigations into the deaths of the applicants" relatives, the Court has examined the period of time from which the applicant could or should have started doubting the effectiveness of investigation (see Bogdanovic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Oric v. Croatia, no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; Gojevic-Zrnic and Mancic v. Croatia (dec)., no. 5676/13, 17 March 2015; Radicanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75504/12; Grubic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015; Babic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 74338/12, 24 November 2015; Lovric and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 57849/13, 12 January 2016; Ribic and Others (dec.), no. 21610/13, 12 January 2016; Savic v. Croatia (dec.), no. 32023/13, 12 January 2016; Opacic and Godic Croatia (dec.), no. 28882/13, 26 January 2016; and Ivancic and Dzelajlija v. Croatia (dec.), no. 62916/13, 15 March 2016).