Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAMJANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Partly struck out of the list;Partly inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  DAMJANOVIC v. CROATIA

  Art. 2, Art. 2 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 13, Art. 14 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.02.1975 - 4451/70

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in that respect but the ultimate decision as to the observance of the Convention's requirements rests with the Court (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 January 1975, §§ 34 in fine and 35-36, Series A no. 18, and Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, §§ 91-93, ECHR 2001-V).
• EGMR, 18.09.2007 - 28953/03

  SULWINSKA v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  To this end, the Court will examine the declaration carefully in the light of the principles established in its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spólka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwinska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
• EGMR, 04.03.2008 - 18369/07

  JOSIPOVIC v. SERBIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  In any event, the Court's decision is without prejudice to any decision it might take to restore, pursuant to Article 37 § 2 of the Convention, this part of the application to its list of cases should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration (see Josipovic v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008, and Aleksentseva and 28 Others v. Russia (dec.), nos.

• EGMR, 23.02.1999 - 41400/98

  MONFORTE SANCHO, GARCIA MORENO, ROIG ESPERT, ROIG ESPERT ET ICARDO GARCIA contre …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  Furthermore, the Court must make its assessment in each case in the light of the special features of the proceedings in question and by reference to the object and purpose of Article 6 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, § 36, ECHR 2000 I).
• EGMR, 12.06.2014 - 57856/11

  JELIC v. CROATIA and three other applications

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  The Court notes that it has repeatedly found violations of Article 2 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention on account of inadequate investigations into the killing or ill-treatment of applicants or their close relatives (see Jularic v. Croatia, no. 20106/06, 20 January 2011; Skendzic and Krznaric v. Croatia, no. 16212/08, 20 January 2011; and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, 12 June 2014; and, mutatis mutandis, Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, 31 May 2007).
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 40847/98

  TAMMINEN v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see, inter alia, Tamminen v. Finland, no. 40847/98, § 38, 15 June 2004).
• EGMR, 20.01.2011 - 16212/08

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.08.2015 - 5306/13

  The Court notes that it has repeatedly found violations of Article 2 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention on account of inadequate investigations into the killing or ill-treatment of applicants or their close relatives (see Jularic v. Croatia, no. 20106/06, 20 January 2011; Skendzic and Krznaric v. Croatia, no. 16212/08, 20 January 2011; and Jelic v. Croatia, no. 57856/11, 12 June 2014; and, mutatis mutandis, Secic v. Croatia, no. 40116/02, 31 May 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• 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, 26.05.2020 - 32343/16

  JEKIC AND OTHERS v. CROATIA

  He cited the case of Damjanović v. Croatia ((dec.), no. 5306/13, 25 August 2015), pointing out that the applicant in that case - his brother - had complained of the same damaging event and that the Government had acknowledged that there had been a violation of Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention.