Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DEARI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Art. 2, Art. 13, Art. 14+2, Art. 14 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (22)Zitiert selbst (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 29.01.2002 - 38587/97

  BAYRAM and YILDIRIM v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  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 Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 73065/01

  BULUT and YAVUZ v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  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 Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 02.07.2002 - 76573/01

  DENNIS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  Where it is clear from the outset, however, that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of such acts or their effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002).

• EGMR, 15.12.2009 - 18907/02

  NARIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  In any case, the applicants should have had the benefit of a full year after September and December 2008 respectively before they should have been aware that the investigations were ineffective (see Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, § 50, 15 December 2009).
• EGMR, 02.12.2010 - 27065/05

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  The rule should ensure that it is possible to ascertain the facts of the case before that possibility fades away, making a fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, § 172, 2 December 2010).
• EGMR, 26.05.2005 - 46231/99

  AYDIN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  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 Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 13.10.2009 - 27872/03

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  On the contrary, the searches for the perpetrators had been ongoing for a long time without any active steps being taken by the authorities or the applicants, and without any evidence being brought to the authorities" attention (see Gasyak and Others v. Turkey, no. 27872/03, §§ 60 and 62, 13 October 2009).
• EGMR, 15.11.2005 - 57952/00

  ELSANOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  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 Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 31.05.2011 - 3025/06

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  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 Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey (dec.), no. 38587/97, ECHR 2002-III; Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002; Sükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; and Finozhenok v. Russia (dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011).
• EGMR, 15.02.2007 - 69908/01

  JASAR v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  Auszug aus EGMR, 06.03.2012 - 54415/09

  The provisions of the Criminal Proceedings Act relevant to the present case were described in the Jasar judgment (see Jasar v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 69908/01, §§ 33-40, 15 February 2007).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 173/17

  X AND Y v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

  The relevant general principles regarding the purpose of the six-month rule stipulated in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and the calculation of the six-month time-limit in view of the effectiveness of remedies used, in general, and in the case of ongoing investigations, in particular, have been outlined in Jeronovičs v. Latvia ([GC], no. 44898/10, §§ 74 and 75, ECHR 2016, and Deari v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.) no. 54415/09, § 41, 6 March 2012, in the context of Article 2 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 13.04.2017 - 10653/10

  HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN

  In that connection, the Court observes that in a number of cases concerning ongoing investigations into the death 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 Narin v. Turkey, no. 18907/02, §§ 40-51, with further references, 15 December 2009; Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 54415/09, §§ 41-50, 6 March 2012; and Bogdanović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 72254/11, §§ 31-45, 18 March 2014).
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 32036/13

  TRESKAVICA 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 Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kıniş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Frandeş 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; Bogdanović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Orić v. Croatia, no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; Gojević-Zrnić and Mančić v. Croatia (dec)., no. 5676/13, 17 March 2015; Radičanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75504/12; and Grubić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015).

• EGMR, 06.07.2017 - 80960/12

  ZDJELAR 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 Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kıniş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Frandeş 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; Bogdanović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Orić v. Croatia, no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; Gojević-Zrnić and Mančić v. Croatia (dec)., no. 5676/13, 17 March 2015; Radičanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75504/12; and Grubić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR, 06.02.2020 - 40394/10

  SAKVARELIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Thus, it cannot be said that she did not show an interest in having the relevant facts elucidated through a criminal investigation at the domestic level (contrast Akhvlediani and Others, cited above, § 25; Manukyan v. Georgia (dec.), no. 53073/07, § 30, 9 October 2012; and Deari and Others v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (dec.), no. 54415/09, §§ 47-49, 6 March 2012).
• 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 Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kıniş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Frandeş 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; Bogdanović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Orić v. Croatia, no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; Gojević-Zrnić and Mančić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, 17 March 2015; Radičanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75504/12; and Grubić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 39468/13

  OBAJDIN 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 Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kıniş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Frandeş 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; Bogdanović v. Croatia (dec.), no. 722541/11, 18 March 2014; Orić v. Croatia, no. 50203/12, 13 May 2014; Gojević-Zrnić and Mančić v. Croatia (dec)., no. 5676/13, 17 March 2015; Radičanin and Others v. Croatia (dec.), no. 75504/12; and Grubić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 56094/12, 9 June 2015).
• EGMR, 26.01.2016 - 38882/13

  OPACIC AND GODIC 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 Şükran Aydın and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005; Bulut and Yavuz, cited above; Bayram and Yıldırım, cited above; Kıniş v. Turkey (dec.), no. 13635/04, 28 June 2005; Elsanova v. Russia (dec.) no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005; Frandeş 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; and Gusar v. Moldova and Rumania (dec.), no. 37204/02, 30 April 2013).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 52577/15

  TODOROVIC v. CROATIA

  In other cases it ranged from three and a half years to one year and eight months (in Gojević-Zrnić and Mančić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 5676/13, § 31, 17 March 2015) and Bayram and Yıldırım v. Turkey ((dec.), no. 38587/97, 29 January 2002) it was three and a half years; in Finozhenok v. Russia ((dec.), no. 3025/06, 31 May 2011) it was three years; in Deari and Others v. the Former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia ((dec.), no. 54415/09, § 49, 6 March 2012) it was two and a half years; in Elsanova v. Russia ((dec.), no. 57952/00, 15 November 2005) it was two years; and in Gusar v. the Republic of Moldova and Romania ((dec.), no. 37204/02, § 17, 30 April 2013) it was one year and eight months.
• EGMR, 13.05.2014 - 50203/12

  ORIC 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 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; 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; and Gusar v. Moldova and Rumania (dec.), no. 37204/02, 30 April 2013).
• EGMR, 19.11.2020 - 72080/12

  SHAVADZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 02.06.2015 - 79768/12

  KUKAVICA v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 19.05.2015 - 75504/12

  RADICANIN AND OTHERS v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 17.03.2015 - 5676/13

  GOJEVIC-ZRNIC AND MANCIC v. CROATIA
• EGMR, 18.03.2014 - 72254/11

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

  AKHVLEDIANI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 18.09.2018 - 4800/10

  SHAVLOKHOVA v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 24.06.2021 - 31016/17

  MEMEDOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"
• EGMR, 27.05.2014 - 37678/10

  SUBARI AND KOBIDZE v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 01.12.2015 - 11182/10

  DAVITASHVILI v. GEORGIA
• EGMR, 09.04.2013 - 23590/06

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 16.06.2015 - 24488/13

  M.B. v. CROATIA